[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: Stefano Lattarini
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] First steps in making autoconf ensure a POSIX shell
Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2012 17:33:54 +0100

On 11/07/2012 04:41 PM, Paul Eggert wrote:
> On 11/07/2012 04:37 AM, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
>> I want to be able to assume the make recipes
>> are run by a POSIX shell.
> Thanks.
> Are all the features you're testing for specified by
> POSIX 1003.2-1992? (That is, are they all suitably *old* POSIX?)
I'm not really sure: I only looked at the last standard available
online on the Austing Group site:


In any case, the features required seem common and simple enough, and
I'd rather start aiming a little high, and then lower our expectations
if we hit a real-world shell that doesn't support all the features
we are testing (this way we can also keep explicit track, in the
documentation or VCS history, of the rationale for which we aren't
using them -- an aspect where the current Autoconf codebase is sorely
lacking unfortunately).  I see little point in deliberately wanting to
support a 20 years old standard where we can support a 9 years old one
without any foreseeable real loss of real loss of portability.

> If so, these patches look good, except that
> the documentation needs to be updated (it should mention
> the POSIX version, for example) 
Yes; this should go in the commit message as well.

> and a NEWS item needs to be added.
> Do we need to bother with a new branch?  I'd say
> that this is pretty much ready for the master, modulo
> the documentation fixes.
I'd like not to push in master stuff that is only lightly tested
and not yet agreed upon by all the developers in master.  Giving
it some time to cook in a another branch (which I'll try out in
combination with a new related Automake branch) seems safer, and
likely will also produce a clearer and more informative history.

But if you all vote for this to go directly into master, that's
fine with me.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]