Re: Bash vs. sh

[Eric Blake]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

According to Jim Meyering on 4/23/2008 4:28 AM:
| I was going to suggest this:
|
|   Send a properly git-attributed patch (i.e., trivial for me to
|   apply with "git am your-patch" -- see coreutils' HACKING for details)
|   and I'll apply it.
|
| but then realized that Eric might be revamping the whole thing.

I'm not quite sure what is best to do here.  It seems like the simplest
wrapper might be this untested script (short enough to possibly be worth
distributing without copyright notice, since adding the notice would
double its size):

#!/bin/sh
if test "${GNULIB_SRCDIR+set}" != set ; then
~  GNULIB_SRCDIR=`sed -n 's/gnulib_dir = //p' < cfg.mk`
fi
if autom4te --language=m4sh -o bootstrap_inner \
~    "${GNULIB_SRCDIR}/bootstrap.m4sh" ; then
~  exec bootstrap_inner
else
~  status=$?
~  echo "$0: Please follow the directions in README-hacking to" \
~    "bootstrap this package" >&2
~  (exit $status); exit $status
fi

This isn't very robust to failure.  But the more robust you make it, the
more it argues for having a single bootstrap script in the first place.
Should bootstrap maintain both bootstrap.m4sh and the generated bootstrap?
~ Should projects that want to use gnulib's bootstrap also check it into
their own repository, or just use the README files to inform users that
their package can't be bootstrapped until gnulib's bootstrap file is run?

At this point, I'm more throwing around ideas than committing to write
patches, so don't hold up your improvements while waiting for me to do
something :)

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

Eric Blake             address@hidden
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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

iEYEARECAAYFAkgQD/8ACgkQ84KuGfSFAYC9dQCfQDUtu28shNFUbiJ44KegUVYR
BQUAn0wkzw13XOKdztiVDomIxmUp5vty
=lBTa
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----