Ãngel GonzÃlez <ingenit@xxxxxxxx> writes:
> This is wrong.
Not really.
> You are replacing bash with sh:
>> -#!/bin/bash
>> +#!/bin/sh
>
> but the script still uses bash-specific syntax (aka. bashishms):
Do you mean some of the parts you quoted are bashism?
>> PATCH=$(zenity --file-selection)
Even though ancient shells I grew up with did not have $(), it is a way
backticks should have been written by Bourne from day one. Historically,
handling nesting and interraction between double-quotes and backticks
correctly was a nightmare to get right, and different implementations of
shells got them always wrong. If you use $(), the headaches go away.
These days, we don't know of any POSIX shell that is widely used and does
not understand $(). As such, the above construct is perfectly safe and
even preferred over ``. Welcome to the 21st century ;-)
>> if [ "$?" != "0" ] ; then
While I personally do not like this style (I am old fashioned) and would
probably write:
if test $? != 0
then
...
or make it even more readable by writing it together with the previous
statement, i.e.
PATCH=$(zenity --file-selection) ||
...
myself, it is definitely not bash-ism to use [] for conditionals. Some
people seem to find it more readable than traditional "test" (not me).
The only major platform that didn't have a reasonable shell was Solaris,
but we already have written its /bin/sh off as broken and unusable, and
suggest people to use xpg4 or xpg6 shell (see the Makefile).
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html