[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Bash vs. sh

From: Jim Meyering
Subject: Re: Bash vs. sh
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 21:50:07 +0200

"Joel E. Denny" <address@hidden> wrote:

> On Tue, 22 Apr 2008, Jim Meyering wrote:
>> > as the preferred method for getting started, avoiding the need to check in
>> > bootstrap?  Or even have a two-level bootstrap: ./bootstrap is a simple
>> > checked-in wrapper which portably calls autom4te on bootstrap_inner.m4sh
>> > then runs bootstrap_inner with the expectation of a better shell?
>> Actually, I like that.
>> Are you interested in writing the patch?
> As long as we're discussing a two-level bootstrap....
> How many packages are syncing their bootstrap scripts with Coreutils?
> Bison has made some changes to bootstrap that Coreutils might benefit
> from, and vice-versa.  If there are other projects besides Bison and
> Coreutils, maybe bootstrap_inner.m4sh, like GNUmakefile, should be placed
> in gnulib.  Your bootstrap wrapper would download it before running

There's already a bootstrap module in gnulib.
We sync things around periodically.
Patches welcome, of course.

> autom4te.  This wrapper will hopefully remain much simpler than
> bootstrap_inner.m4sh and rarely require syncing among projects.  Besides,
> the wrapper may be a place for project-specific bootstrap tasks that
> bootstrap_inner.m4sh doesn't handle, if any.

reply via email to

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