On July 4, 2018 9:34:36 PM UTC, Rainer Jung <rainer.j...@kippdata.de> wrote: >Am 04.07.2018 um 23:05 schrieb ma...@apache.org: >> Author: markt >> Date: Wed Jul 4 21:05:58 2018 >> New Revision: 1835090 >> >> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1835090&view=rev >> Log: >> Consistently use $(...) rather than `...` >The uglyness of shell: > >Backticks work in many shells, "$(..)" only in non-ancient shells. Our >scripts all declare that they want to get run by /bin/sh which can be >an >unexpectedly old type of shell. > >An example is Solaris 10, where /bin/sh is a very old (original) Bourne > >Shell which does not support $(..) and for example also not "export >VAR=VAL" (instead only "VAR=VAL;export VAR"). > >I am not totally opposed against using newer shell constructs. But the >problem is platform independent shell coding. For some platforms >/bin/sh >in our hashbang header is too old, but for other platforms /bin/bash >might not exist. There's no easy solution if we want to modernize - >except for deprecating platforms or letting users fix the scripts. > >So it still might be best to stick to the old compatible constructs, >especially since our scripts are only doing basic stuff (which is >good).
Happy to revert. There were a few places that used $(...) before this change. I'll switch them to backticks. I'll look at this tomorrow. Mark --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tomcat.apache.org
