On Sat, 21 Feb 2004, Rafael Kitover wrote: > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Igor Pechtchanski > >Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2004 7:23 AM > >Subject: Re: Pending patches for generic build script > > > >On Fri, 13 Feb 2004, Charles Wilson wrote: > > > >> Igor Pechtchanski wrote: > >> > >> >>false || true > >> >> > >> >>As a bonus, this construct documents that this particular line can > >> >>return a false value. > >> > > >> > > >> > I see. Well, this does look reasonably readable... Another problem with > >> > "set +e" that I vaguely recall reading about is that it may not always be > >> > propagated into functions... If you're willing to test this and make sure > >> > it always works properly, and if nobody else protests, I'll consider > >> > patching the generic-build-script. > >> > >> Yes, I've never liked the silly looking '&& \' syntax in the gbs. If > >> propagation of 'set +e' into functions is a problem, then just have each > >> function re-do it... > > > >Chuck, > > > >Ok, great! Since you're in favor of it (and you're the ultimate authority > >on the gbs, I'm just temporarily handling the maintainer duties), it makes > >me much more confident. I'll let Rafael test out the propagation of "set > >+e" into functions, and then make the appropriate change. > [SNIP] > > > >Umm, yes, since bash is in the "Base" category, any Cygwin machine will > >have it, and it's not like the performance of the gbs itself is an > >issue... > > > >I think I'll wait until all the others' patches have been applied, though, > >and then do it in one shot as one big change. > > > >Rafael, if you're reading this, could you do the tests with both sh and > >bash, and let me know if bash behaves better with respect to "set +e"? If > >it does, we can switch the gbs to use bash. > > Igor > > Of course, waiting for the various gbs patches to go through first makes > perfect sense. I was just bringing up the issue for discussion, it's not an > emergency, we have plenty of those over on the main list :)
Yeah, I know what you mean. But changing the gbs via small incremental improvements is the way to go, IMO. Using the "set +e" approach vs. the current '&&' one will improve readability and make the gbs more robust. FWIW, I've emptied my patch queue for now, so feel free to start testing. > What I was planning to do was make a canonical Cygwin package, kind of like GNU > Hello, using Hello as a base, and call it "boffo" to match the setup > documentation :) Eventually we'll be at a point were a new maintainer can get a > copy of boffo, tweak it, make their package, and have the package script do > some basic sanity checks. Also add some sort of selftest function for the gbs > against the canonical package, making development of the gbs itself a bit > easier (it can really suck when you have to wait half an hour for a build to go > through to check a minor tweak in the package script...) I'm not sure I parsed all of this correctly, but I'll probably get it once the patches actually arrive. :-) > Another feature I've dreamt up is have an "update-script" function for > the gbs, such that you could run pkg/CYGWIN-PATCHES/pkg.sh update-script > which would get the latest copy out of cvs or wherever is appropriate, > and patch the maintainer's script with the latest tweaks, as an > interactive patch if necessary. Sure, just don't call it "${PKG}.sh", since that name is now recognized as a postinstall script... The latest version of the gbs makes it somewhat easier, since it now contains the CVS Id tag. Igor -- http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/ |\ _,,,---,,_ [EMAIL PROTECTED] ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ [EMAIL PROTECTED] |,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' Igor Pechtchanski, Ph.D. '---''(_/--' `-'\_) fL a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-. Meow! "I have since come to realize that being between your mentor and his route to the bathroom is a major career booster." -- Patrick Naughton