On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 04:04:34PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote: > On Wed, 12 Oct 2016, Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On ke, 2016-10-12 at 14:16 +0300, Jani Nikula wrote: > >> If you really care, go ahead and send the patches to make these Bourne > >> shell compatible, but then do also sign up for testing them on non-bash > >> shells. The CI won't. I don't think it's worth the trouble, but YMMV. > > > > If they're re-written using POSIX sh constructs only, I don't think > > they need to be tested outside of POSIX sh? That's what standards are > > for. > > It's just that if the majority of folks and the CI have bash as /bin/sh, > we won't notice when we accidentally add bashisms, and it'll eventually > break. Maybe you could keep running shellcheck [1] on them, or > something. At the very least most/all Debian and Ubuntu systems use dash as /bin/sh. It supports a very small subset of the bashisms (most notably local), and is faster than bash. > [1] https://www.shellcheck.net/ > > > I also remember FreeBSD guys being all for letting bash dependency go. > > So there'd be actual gains too. > > I'm biting my lips not to quip on that. > > > All are easily convertible. So let's do this. > > If you have the time, go ahead. But don't break *any* functionality, no > compromises. Kind regards, David _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
