Re: [RFC PATCH 02/28] cli: Add LIL shell

[Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1401 bytes --]

On Wed, Jul 07, 2021 at 04:10:43PM +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear Tom,
> 
> In message <20210707135839.GW9516@bill-the-cat> you wrote:
> > 
> > As I've said a few times in this thread, this not being an sh-style
> > interpreter is a strike against it.  And if we're going to insist on a
> > bug-for-bug upgrade to our hush (so that all of the hugely complex
> > existing scripts keep working) we might as well not upgrade.  Frankly I
> > suspect that down the line IF a new cli interpreter comes in to U-Boot
> > we will have to keep the old one around as a "use this instead" option
> > for another long number of years, so that if there are any systems with
> > non-trivial scripts but upgrade U-Boot and don't / won't / can't
> > re-validate their entire sequence, they can just use the old cli.
> 
> Do you actually have an example where code working on our ancient
> port of hush would fail on the current upstream version?

Have you validated one of those exceedingly complex boot scripts with a
modern hush (and some fakery for u-boot commands) ?  No.  I'm just
saying I expect there to be enough risk-adverse groups that just
dropping our old hush entirely might not be possible right away.  Of
course, if all of the current in-tree complex cases Just Work, that
might be a good argument against needing to keep such levels of
backwards compatibility.

-- 
Tom

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 659 bytes --]