[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Bash vs. sh

From: Eric Blake
Subject: Re: Bash vs. sh
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 06:10:15 -0600
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv: Gecko/20080213 Thunderbird/ Mnenhy/

Hash: SHA1

According to Jim Meyering on 4/22/2008 3:42 AM:
| I'll probably change the instructions in README-hacking to mention
| that you may have to run "bash ./bootstrap" rather than
|       $ ./bootstrap
| if your system's /bin/sh is substandard.

Sounds reasonable, since there are already a number of other hacking
instructions to follow.

| Plus, maybe be a test to detect the broken shell and to warn you
| that you need to invoke the script differently.

Absolutely; autoconf does a good job at this (and you can use the
resulting configure or config.status to get a good idea of what the code
should look like).

| An alternative is to encumber bootstrap with shell-selection
| code and make it re-exec itself using a sufficiently functional shell.
| But that too may fail, so I don't see the point.

Is it worth writing bootstrap.m4sh, and running it through autom4te to get
the shell selection code from autoconf with minimal effort on your part?
You'd still probably want to check in the generated bootstrap script, though.

- --
Don't work too hard, make some time for fun as well!

Eric Blake             address@hidden
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Cygwin)
Comment: Public key at home.comcast.net/~ericblake/eblake.gpg
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org


reply via email to

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