On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 5:35 PM, Kurt H Maier <kh...@intma.in> wrote: > On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 05:36:58PM +0200, Lucio De Re wrote: >> >> Sure, feel free to make something that isn't shitty, there's plenty >> out there that can be improved. The machinery to install Go (from >> sources) is hardly the most important amongst them. >> > > The Go team has already explicitly stated they are note interested in a > better build system. I don't know if it's plain NIH or a secret bash > fetish, but they're not buying. Improving software is not a zero-sum > game; Go development is not a closed system. The build system can be > improved without impeding other progress.
Where did the Go team say explicitly they are not interested in a better build system? They just said they are not interested in replacing the last very few remaining bits of bash unless there is certainty that it wont break the build in some system. The current build system already provides facilities to do this, just nobody has bothered to replace the last remaining bits of (ba)sh. >> Solution: replace >> the #!/bin/sh with #!/usr/bin/env -c /bin/bash. Why not? > > Because there are plenty of systems out there without env or bash. > >> I may >> misremember, but before the Go tool was released, the Plan 9 release >> managed to get itself compiled using ape/sh. As far as I can tell, >> the dependence isn't in Bash features as much as in the consistency >> across Bash versions. >> > > ...which is another unproved assumption. What is the unproven assumption? One of the Go devs already pointed out that the current shell scripts don't work for (who knows what reason) FreeBSD's default shell, even when they make no use of any bash-specific features as far as anyone knows.
