[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Bash vs. sh
From: |
Joel E. Denny |
Subject: |
Re: Bash vs. sh |
Date: |
Wed, 23 Apr 2008 02:35:16 -0400 (EDT) |
On Wed, 23 Apr 2008, Jim Meyering wrote:
> > 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.
Ok, thanks. I wasn't aware.
> > 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.
If the above approach is too restrictive, maybe gnulib's bootstrap script
could at least contain a comment explaining that it should be kept in sync
with gnulib. That might help out sheltered little developers like me. :)
- 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, 2008/04/23
- Re: Bash vs. sh,
Joel E. Denny <=
- Re: Bash vs. sh, Jim Meyering, 2008/04/23
- Re: Bash vs. sh, Eric Blake, 2008/04/24