[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: |
Wed, 23 Apr 2008 08:09:07 +0200 |
"Joel E. Denny" <address@hidden> wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Apr 2008, Jim Meyering wrote:
>
>> "Joel E. Denny" <address@hidden> wrote:
>
>> There's already a bootstrap module in gnulib.
>
> You mean build-aux/bootstrap?
Yes.
>> We sync things around periodically.
>
> I was hoping for something more formal: all developers commit their
> bootstrap-inner.m4sh changes to gnulib instead of to their own projects.
That's already the idea, using gnulib's bootstrap.
And things are in sync, modulo a few kludges I've
had to add for coreutils.
> Writing bootstrap to download bootstrap-inner.m4sh automatically might
> help encourage this practice. Then I don't have to hunt through the logs
> of several other projects in order to avoid reinventing bootstrapping
> fixes.
- Re: Bash vs. sh, Joel E. Denny, 2008/04/20
- Re: Bash vs. sh, Jim Meyering, 2008/04/22
- Re: Bash vs. sh, Eric Blake, 2008/04/22
- Re: Bash vs. sh, Jim Meyering, 2008/04/22
- Message not available
- Re: Bash vs. sh, Jim Meyering, 2008/04/22
- Re: Bash vs. sh, Joel E. Denny, 2008/04/22
- Re: Bash vs. sh, Jim Meyering, 2008/04/22
- Re: Bash vs. sh, Joel E. Denny, 2008/04/22
- Re: Bash vs. sh,
Jim Meyering <=
- Re: Bash vs. sh, Joel E. Denny, 2008/04/23
- Re: Bash vs. sh, Jim Meyering, 2008/04/23
- Re: Bash vs. sh, Eric Blake, 2008/04/24