On 13/04/2019 13:31, Jeremy Huntwork wrote: > On Sat, Apr 13, 2019 at 04:16 Pierre Labastie <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > On 13/04/2019 00:18, Jeremy Huntwork wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 6:12 PM Jeremy Huntwork > > <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > >> > >> You're right, that would work just as well. I think I just get used to > >> switching from 'ls' to 'find' in scripts. I'll send an updated patch. > >> > > > > Thanks. Apart from one thing (BLUE is used in one function, and should be > declared), I think your patch is OK. But there is something I do not like: > shellcheck propose to "export" variables that look unused. But if they are > used in a function, they do not need to be exported, and exporting too > many > variables may be a problem: for example, if you tick "Run Makefile", the > whole > build process may be run with the exported variables (depending on sudo's > "keep_env" setting), and who knows which kind of clash may result? So I'd > rather use a shellcheck directive to disable the shellcheck warning when > I am > sure the variable is used in a function. Or otherwise make the exported > variable names unique (like adding a prefix such as JH_). > > I may be missing something here, so I'm open to discussion. But if you > agree, > I'll disable shellcheck SC2034 rather than exporting variables. > > Pierre > > > > I agree, I tend to prefer prefixed variables. Also, I think shellcheck > recommends exporting because those variables are included in other sourced > files that it can’t verify directly. To ignore the suggestion for these cases > should be fine. > > I’ll send another patch in a little while, or if you want to just go ahead > with your adjustments that’s fine too. >
Let me finish with this patch. I've managed to eliminate all the shellcheck warnings, without exporting variables. I've added a couple of double backslash's to silent the last ones (*). I'm running a build right now, to check that everything is OK. Do you want to check the other scripts? Nothing mandatory, of course. I'll be glad to keep collaborating with you. Pierre (*): I'd never realized that: $ echo -e "\n" and: $ echo -e "\\n" were equivalent (print a blank line), while: $ echo -e \n and: $ echo -e \\n aren't (the first one prints a "n", the second one prints a blank line). I begin to understand the use of "printf" builtin -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/alfs-discuss FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
