From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: DervishD Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] util-linux-ng 2.13-rc1 Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2007 12:43:23 +0200 Message-ID: <20070706104323.GB30887@DervishD> References: <8CYT9-4Ou-23@gated-at.bofh.it> <87vecyeg5y.fsf@hades.wkstn.nix> <20070706064153.GA25161@DervishD> <200707060317.35177.vapier@gentoo.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: DervishD , Nix , Bodo Eggert <7eggert-Mmb7MZpHnFY@public.gmane.org>, Karel Zak , List util-linux-ng , linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-fsdevel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Mike Frysinger Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200707060317.35177.vapier-aBrp7R+bbdUdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org> Sender: util-linux-ng-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org Hi Mike :) * Mike Frysinger dixit: > On Friday 06 July 2007, DervishD wrote: > > I really like the spirit of CMake. Of course, it adds a depende= ncy, > > but IMHO is much safer to depend on CMake being installed (or Perl,= for > > that matter) than to depend on a shell. Every shell out there seems= to > > do things on its own, and apart from dash, which is more or less > > standard, the rest of shells do actually violate the standard one w= ay or > > another (in fact, configure script include workarounds for at least= Bash > > and Zsh). >=20 > careful, you tread into dangerous territory making silly statements l= ike that. =20 > by "standard" you probably mean "POSIX standard" which dash too has h= ad=20 > plenty of bugs in terms of implementing it properly (and still does). Probably, I haven't carried thoroughly tests, but up to date, it's the most POSIX compliant shell I've found. Probably dash is crappy too, regarding POSIX compliance, but that only reinforces my point: dependin= g on shells is less safe than depending on CMake. > and claiming that it's safer to depend on CMake=20 > than bash in this Linux world is just plain bogus. Probably. I didn't claim that, anyway. I said "shell" and not "Bash". Depending on a C program is safer, IMHO, than depending on the features of an unknown shell. And FWIW, /bin/sh can be *any* shell on *any* system where autotools run. And yes, I have bash installed on my system because some people insist in writing bash scripts while asking for "#!/bin/sh". That's bogus. Ra=FAl N=FA=F1ez de Arenas Coronado --=20 Linux Registered User 88736 | http://www.dervishd.net It's my PC and I'll cry if I want to... RAmen!