On Wed, Jul 07, 2021 at 04:10:43PM +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote: > Dear Tom, > > In message <20210707135839.GW9516@bill-the-cat> you wrote: > > > > As I've said a few times in this thread, this not being an sh-style > > interpreter is a strike against it. And if we're going to insist on a > > bug-for-bug upgrade to our hush (so that all of the hugely complex > > existing scripts keep working) we might as well not upgrade. Frankly I > > suspect that down the line IF a new cli interpreter comes in to U-Boot > > we will have to keep the old one around as a "use this instead" option > > for another long number of years, so that if there are any systems with > > non-trivial scripts but upgrade U-Boot and don't / won't / can't > > re-validate their entire sequence, they can just use the old cli. > > Do you actually have an example where code working on our ancient > port of hush would fail on the current upstream version?
Have you validated one of those exceedingly complex boot scripts with a modern hush (and some fakery for u-boot commands) ? No. I'm just saying I expect there to be enough risk-adverse groups that just dropping our old hush entirely might not be possible right away. Of course, if all of the current in-tree complex cases Just Work, that might be a good argument against needing to keep such levels of backwards compatibility. -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
