[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Bash vs. sh
From: |
Joel E. Denny |
Subject: |
Re: Bash vs. sh |
Date: |
Tue, 22 Apr 2008 15:27:18 -0400 (EDT) |
On Tue, 22 Apr 2008, Jim Meyering wrote:
> > as the preferred method for getting started, avoiding the need to check in
> > bootstrap? Or even have a two-level bootstrap: ./bootstrap is a simple
> > checked-in wrapper which portably calls autom4te on bootstrap_inner.m4sh
> > then runs bootstrap_inner with the expectation of a better shell?
>
> Actually, I like that.
> Are you interested in writing the patch?
As long as we're discussing a two-level bootstrap....
How many packages are syncing their bootstrap scripts with Coreutils?
Bison has made some changes to bootstrap that Coreutils might benefit
from, and vice-versa. If there are other projects besides Bison and
Coreutils, maybe bootstrap_inner.m4sh, like GNUmakefile, should be placed
in gnulib. Your bootstrap wrapper would download it before running
autom4te. This wrapper will hopefully remain much simpler than
bootstrap_inner.m4sh and rarely require syncing among projects. Besides,
the wrapper may be a place for project-specific bootstrap tasks that
bootstrap_inner.m4sh doesn't handle, if any.
- Re: Bash vs. sh, Joel E. Denny, 2008/04/20
- Re: Bash vs. sh, Jim Meyering, 2008/04/22
- Re: Bash vs. sh, Eric Blake, 2008/04/22
- Re: Bash vs. sh, Jim Meyering, 2008/04/22
- Message not available
- Re: Bash vs. sh, Jim Meyering, 2008/04/22
- Re: Bash vs. sh,
Joel E. Denny <=
- Re: Bash vs. sh, Jim Meyering, 2008/04/22
- Re: Bash vs. sh, Joel E. Denny, 2008/04/22
- Re: Bash vs. sh, Jim Meyering, 2008/04/23
- Re: Bash vs. sh, Joel E. Denny, 2008/04/23
- Re: Bash vs. sh, Jim Meyering, 2008/04/23
- Re: Bash vs. sh, Eric Blake, 2008/04/24