[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH 0/2] First steps in making autoconf ensure a POSIX shell
From: |
Adrian Bunk |
Subject: |
Re: [PATCH 0/2] First steps in making autoconf ensure a POSIX shell |
Date: |
Sat, 10 Nov 2012 16:39:31 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) |
On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 03:21:52PM +0100, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
> On 11/10/2012 02:58 PM, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 02:07:38PM +0100, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
>...
> > With all that gets blamed (sometimes rightfully and sometimes wrongly)
> > on autoconf/automake/libtool, portability was so far always a plus point.
> >
> True, but "portability" != "maximum portability". The benefits of the
> first still outweight its costs; this is not true for the second IMHO.
I am a fan of getting the data before making the decision.
If we know first what features are a problem on which systems,
then we have a better basis for a decision.
> >> Being able to seamlessly work with Clang on Mac OS X as well as with
> >> the Sun C compiler on Solaris 10 is important. Being able to work
> >> with gcc 2.95 on a Solaris 7 system is irrelevant (at least if the
> >> Autotools want to remain mainly concerned up with the GNU philosophy
> >> of promoting software freedom in a practical way).
> >
> > K&R compilers are no longer supported.
> >
> You are not referring to the modern Sun C compilers (those from
> Sun Studio), right? Because I can assure you there is nothing "K&R"
> about them ;-)
No, I was just referring to something completely ancient that was still
relevant in the mid-1990s, but is no longer supported by autoconf.
> > gcc 2.95 on Solaris 7 is likely no longer used.
> >
> > But I just read the "Shell Substitutions" section of the autoconf info
> > page, and according to that the last stable version of pdksh has shell
> > substitution bugs.
> >
> > Are the relevant patches in all pdksh binaries used today?
> >
> Please understand I'm not proposing to reject a shell just because it has
> a bug in some tricky corner case... Otherwise, we should reject Bash and
> dash as well :-)
Also, `pdksh' 5.2.14 mishandles some WORD forms. For example if
`$1' is `a/b' and `$2' is `a', then `${1#$2}' should yield `/b',
but with `pdksh' it yields the empty string.
>...
> > If we would e.g. end up with GNU software no longer compiling on a still
> > used OpenBSD release [1] that would be a bad thing.
> >
> Agreed.
>
> Regards,
> Stefano
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
- Re: [PATCH 0/2] First steps in making autoconf ensure a POSIX shell, (continued)
- Re: [PATCH 0/2] First steps in making autoconf ensure a POSIX shell, Eric Blake, 2012/11/07
- Re: [PATCH 0/2] First steps in making autoconf ensure a POSIX shell, Stefano Lattarini, 2012/11/07
- Re: [PATCH 0/2] First steps in making autoconf ensure a POSIX shell, Eric Blake, 2012/11/09
- Re: [PATCH 0/2] First steps in making autoconf ensure a POSIX shell, Stefano Lattarini, 2012/11/10
- Re: [PATCH 0/2] First steps in making autoconf ensure a POSIX shell, Adrian Bunk, 2012/11/10
- Re: [PATCH 0/2] First steps in making autoconf ensure a POSIX shell, Stefano Lattarini, 2012/11/10
- Re: [PATCH 0/2] First steps in making autoconf ensure a POSIX shell, Adrian Bunk, 2012/11/10
- Re: [PATCH 0/2] First steps in making autoconf ensure a POSIX shell, Stefano Lattarini, 2012/11/10
- Re: [PATCH 0/2] First steps in making autoconf ensure a POSIX shell, Adrian Bunk, 2012/11/10
- Re: [PATCH 0/2] First steps in making autoconf ensure a POSIX shell, Stefano Lattarini, 2012/11/10
- Re: [PATCH 0/2] First steps in making autoconf ensure a POSIX shell,
Adrian Bunk <=
- Re: [PATCH 0/2] First steps in making autoconf ensure a POSIX shell, Stefano Lattarini, 2012/11/10