[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: bootstrap: marking gnulib-copied/generated files as such

From: Ralf Wildenhues
Subject: Re: bootstrap: marking gnulib-copied/generated files as such
Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2006 10:24:04 +0200
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-09-01)

Hello Jim,

* Jim Meyering wrote on Fri, Sep 08, 2006 at 09:44:31AM CEST:
> Ralf Wildenhues <address@hidden> wrote:
> >
> > Just FYI: this bootstrap script will not work any more with some shells
> > that are still in practical use.
> Thanks for the quick review and the heads up.
> However, do you really think we should obfuscate (even a little) to
> cater to such old systems when it comes to _development_ tools?

No, I just thought I'd mention this, as I assumed it unobvious.
Whether you ignore it, adhere to ancient /bin/sh limitations, or
add a note to README-cvs, is up to you.  :-)

> People with a limited build environment can always build from a
> released tarball.

Sure.  From my own experience, I can only say that making Libtool
bootstrap almost everywhere I test it has been advantageous to testing
it _for me_: unless the machine is vastly slower than current ones, a
change and a bunch of scp's on another machine make for a slower
developer cycle than just working on the test machine.  (And on the
really slow machines, I'd go and edit `configure' right away anyway...)
But YMMV, and in the above case certainly a `BIN_SH=xpg4 ./bootstrap'
can be expected from the typical coreutils hacker.  ;-)


reply via email to

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