Akim Demaille wrote: > Le 18 janv. 2012 à 11:30, Jim Meyering a écrit : > >> From: Jim Meyering <[email protected]> >> >> Updating to the latest bootstrap from gnulib involves more of a >> change than usual, and updating to the latest gnulib would involve >> its own set of challenges with the upcoming quoting changes, so >> we update bootstrap manually and separately. >> * bootstrap: Update from gnulib. >> * Makefile.am: Initialize more variables to empty, so that gnulib.mk >> can append to them with "+=". >> * bootstrap.conf (gnulib_mk_hook): Remove. No longer honored. >> (bootstrap_epilogue): Instead, run the same command, >> etc/prefix-gnulib-mk lib/$gnulib_mk, from here. >> Temporarily disable "bootstrap_sync=true". >> * etc/prefix-gnulib-mk: Don't prepend "lib/" to tokens like -I$(... >> or "\".
Hi Akim, > Looks like hard (and painful) work! Fulfilling, at least ;-) > What's the coding style for bootstrap etc.? I see some > uses of `command`, and some of $(command) (on $AUTOCONF). > I definitely prefer the latter, and I also prefer (pattern) > in case's cases. We vacillate on this one. I tend to use $(...) all the time now, because most of my shell script work is in tests and gnulib's tests/init.sh is careful to re-exec a shell that accepts that syntax (and satisfies other basic constraints). Thus, sometimes $(...) sneaks into a context where it's not 100% portable, like here. > Also, I see terribly complex see programs that could be > nicer in say Perl. What's the guideline? Very good point. We're running autoconf, which obviously requires perl, so why not write bootstrap in a scripting language that is more portable/usable/etc. than /bin/sh. One can make the same argument with gnulib-tool, and we've debated it at length on the bug-gnulib list. I think everyone agrees that it should be rewritten, but it's Bruno's baby and he does not like Perl enough to rewrite it in that language. If you're in need of a little project, I would be happy to switch to your bootstrap-rewrite-in-Perl, once it's done ;-)
