On 10/2/07, Alex Tarkovsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 10/2/07, Roy Marples <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I accept the argument for initscripts, since an embedded system is not > > > likely to have bash. But for compile-time (which shouldn't happen on an > > > embedded target) there simply isn't any real benefit to end-users that I > > > can see. > > > > The benefit is that our portage tree uses an accepted standardised > > syntax. bash is just a standard to itself. > > How many Gentoo devs are familiar with Bash syntax? All of them. > > How many are familiar with the more obscure POSIX sh syntax? A few. > > Migrating Gentoo's init scripts, eclasses, and ebuilds -- though not > necessarily all of them -- over to POSIX sh syntax requires all Gentoo > devs to know the rules of sh just to be able to continue contributing > to Gentoo without breaking stuff. This will also put off more casual > contributors who work through proxy maintainerships, Sunrise, and > Bugzilla. > > Then you'll need to ensure that all official documentation accomodates > sh syntax, including the ebuild quiz. (And what about the poor folks > at the Gentoo wiki?) > > Add these concerns to the technical objections already raised, and the > touted benefits of your proposal are overwhelmed by the amount of work > it would create and the disruption it will cause to Gentoo > development.
And the pain it'll cause users who maintain their own ebuilds/scripts locally. But if no consideration is given by Roy's proposal to the concerns above, then the users, per usual, will most certainly be overlooked. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
