Re: [PATCH i-g-t v2] tests: Clean up shell scripts

From: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com>
To: Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@linux.intel.com>,
	Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>
Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>,
	Intel graphics driver community testing & development
	<intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH i-g-t v2] tests: Clean up shell scripts
Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2017 16:59:45 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <87lgtiujvi.fsf@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1486478579.3121.127.camel@linux.intel.com>

On Tue, 07 Feb 2017, Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> On ti, 2017-02-07 at 15:32 +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
>> > On Tue, 07 Feb 2017, Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>> > 
>> > On ma, 2017-02-06 at 17:40 +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>> > > 
>> > > On Mon, Feb 06, 2017 at 03:25:27PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
>> > > > 
>> > > > On Mon, 06 Feb 2017, Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>> > > > > 
>> > > > > Convert all scripts to use /bin/sh shebang and fix all shellcheck
>> > > > > reported problems.
>> > > > 
>> > > > Pro-tip, this is the place reserved in commit messages for describing
>> > > > *why* you think the change is needed or for the better. ;)
>> > > 
>> > > And this reply here seems to be the place where I'm asking why we don't
>> > > switch to C if we go through all this effort. I don't really see what sh
>> > > over bash buys us (and you can pretty much expect me to re-add bashism the
>> > > next time around I touch these ...).
>> > 
>> > Oh, totally forgot due to writing the huge RFC e-mail about it. One
>> > could amend the commit message with "to able to run on non-bash
>> > shells.", if it wasn't yet merged.
>> 
>> I learned this from the kids: Why?
>
> We can branch the dialog here, I have the ready answers ;)
>
> a) So you can avoid compiling bash. So you can build faster. Because
> faster is better.
>
> b) Also because you can avoid including bash in initrd. Because it
> results in a smaller image with less dependencies. Because smaller _is_
> better. Because it is faster to load over UEFI PXE. Because faster
> better.
>
> Did I mention faster is better?

And finally we're getting at the roots of the reason, you want to reduce
the size of the dependencies for environments where you have to
bootstrap the entire environment, e.g. initrd. Is that it? That *might*
have some merit.

BR,
Jani.

-- 
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx