[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: 01-as-require-shell-fn.patch
From: |
Gary V. Vaughan |
Subject: |
Re: 01-as-require-shell-fn.patch |
Date: |
Mon, 24 Nov 2003 14:13:54 +0000 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20030925 Thunderbird/0.3 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Akim Demaille wrote:
| > "Paolo Bonzini" <address@hidden> writes:
| >> Now, is there a shell which AS_INIT likes (because it has good LINENO) and
| >> which fails to satisfy these requests? If so, you do have a point, but I
| >> reckon the answer is no.
|
| > I tend to agree: I think the answer is no as well.
|
| I still disagree. It does matter to have function support, and we
| don't care about LINENO at all. There are known environment where
| shell functions are not supported by default, e.g., Ultrix.
|
| But anyway, my point was somewhat different: do you really want
| Autoconf to require shell functions? I did not. That's why I was
| referring to another AS_INIT: so that Autotest used functions,
| collects the list of problems before we use it on Autoconf.
|
| If everybody agrees we can use shell functions, then let's proceed.
| This is quite an audacious change. Given the popularity of changes in
| Autoconf, I quite fear it...
|
| > This issue has been tested in Autoconf for some months now
| > (Functions Support, Functions and return Support in m4sh.at), and
| > nobody has reported a problem.
|
| I do not believe that the set of people/env running make check on
| Autoconf is related in anyway with the set of people/env running
| configure.
Libtool has contained (though not actually called on most env) a shell
function since 2002-10-30, spanning the release of libtool-1.5... libtool
re-execs itself with a shell that has an echo that handles backslashes
properly. I have not had a single complaint. I think that it is true that
there are no more env without a function capable shell install(able) from the
vendor installation media, or at least if there are they are used with their
original tools, not to build and install a modern gnu toolset.
I could probably get the libtool dist down to around 1Mb quite easily if we
embraced shell functions. I am convinced most autotools using packages would
see a pleasant drop in download bandwidth when they upgrade. One of the most
common complaints I get about the gnu build system is, "I autoconfiscated my
200k package, and now the compressed tarball is a Meg and a half in size!".
When packagers hear of a release that drops half a Meg from the size of their
tarball distributions, I am sure they will eventually leave behind Autoconf
2.13!
Cheers,
Gary.
- --
Gary V. Vaughan ())_. address@hidden,gnu.org}
Research Scientist ( '/ http://www.oranda.demon.co.uk
GNU Hacker / )= http://www.gnu.org/software/libtool
Technical Author `(_~)_ http://sources.redhat.com/autobook
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQE/whIhFRMICSmD1gYRAqn9AJ9wt1Uf5mMziJoY+lDG0y/2q6HNugCguM80
jtS51SUzhpA84CaAqv/i23U=
=+4++
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
- Re: 01-as-require-shell-fn.patch, (continued)
- Re: 01-as-require-shell-fn.patch, Bonzini, 2003/11/25
- Re: 01-as-require-shell-fn.patch, Akim Demaille, 2003/11/26
- Re: 01-as-require-shell-fn.patch, Paolo Bonzini, 2003/11/26
- Re: 01-as-require-shell-fn.patch, Akim Demaille, 2003/11/26
- Re: 01-as-require-shell-fn.patch, Paolo Bonzini, 2003/11/27
- Re: 01-as-require-shell-fn.patch, Akim Demaille, 2003/11/27
- Re: 01-as-require-shell-fn.patch, Paul Eggert, 2003/11/24
- Re: 01-as-require-shell-fn.patch, Paolo Bonzini, 2003/11/25
- Re: 01-as-require-shell-fn.patch, Akim Demaille, 2003/11/26
- Re: 01-as-require-shell-fn.patch, Akim Demaille, 2003/11/26
- Re: 01-as-require-shell-fn.patch,
Gary V. Vaughan <=
- Re: 01-as-require-shell-fn.patch, Akim Demaille, 2003/11/24
- Re: 01-as-require-shell-fn.patch, Gary V. Vaughan, 2003/11/24
- Re: 01-as-require-shell-fn.patch, Peter Eisentraut, 2003/11/24