On Sat, Jun 12, 2004 at 08:21:17PM +0200, David Weinehall wrote: > > > We're talking about > > > removing one bashism in a script to make it more portable > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > False. Please come back when you have some comprehension of what > > portable shell scripting means. There's a chapter in the autoconf > > manual that might clue you in. > > There's portable, then there's portable. Being portable to still > developed platforms is reasonable, being portable to Unixen from 1977 is > not. Then what are you trying to accomplish? All of those platforms have bash available. If those are the only ones you are interested in, bash is *already* perfectly portable, so there's no gain to be had. > > Please stop this pointless crusade against bash. All it can accomplish > > is to introduce bugs where previously there were none. Throwing around > > words like "portability" does not accomplish anything. > > It is *NOT* a crusade against bash. I use bash as my primary shell for > all my workstations, my laptop, and my server (and my MacOS X-machine). > I'd rather be able to avoid having it installed on my embedded machine, > though. 1MB of storage doesn't matter squat on my 40GB drive on my > laptop, but it's a 32nd of the total space on my embedded device. It's 600k in the package, or 300k if you build it without all the extra extensions for interactive use. You're going to have a hard time finding a smaller shell than that, without simply farming out all the functionality into other programs (which is counter-productive), and it's a waste of time anyway when there are invariably much larger things that can be tackled. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature