From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1763348AbXGFKnd (ORCPT ); Fri, 6 Jul 2007 06:43:33 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756361AbXGFKnV (ORCPT ); Fri, 6 Jul 2007 06:43:21 -0400 Received: from smtp01.cdmon.com ([86.109.99.230]:62524 "EHLO smtp01.cdmon.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750774AbXGFKnT (ORCPT ); Fri, 6 Jul 2007 06:43:19 -0400 Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2007 12:43:23 +0200 From: DervishD To: Mike Frysinger Cc: DervishD , Nix , Bodo Eggert <7eggert@gmx.de>, Karel Zak , List util-linux-ng , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] util-linux-ng 2.13-rc1 Message-ID: <20070706104323.GB30887@DervishD> Mail-Followup-To: Mike Frysinger , DervishD , Nix , Bodo Eggert <7eggert@gmx.de>, Karel Zak , List util-linux-ng , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org 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-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <200707060317.35177.vapier@gentoo.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i Organization: DervishD Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@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 dependency, > > 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 way or > > another (in fact, configure script include workarounds for at least Bash > > and Zsh). > > careful, you tread into dangerous territory making silly statements like that. > by "standard" you probably mean "POSIX standard" which dash too has had > 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: depending on shells is less safe than depending on CMake. > and claiming that it's safer to depend on CMake > 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. Raúl Núñez de Arenas Coronado -- Linux Registered User 88736 | http://www.dervishd.net It's my PC and I'll cry if I want to... RAmen!