On 8 October 2014 12:35, Miloslav Trmač <m...@redhat.com> wrote: Been away for a week and come back to this nonsense. Why put so much effort into arguing *against* having the right interpreter listed at the top of a script. Seems pretty perverse to insist it should be /bin/sh to maintain a conflation that's unique to RH.
> ----- Original Message ----- >> On 6 October 2014 17:28, Miloslav Trmač <m...@redhat.com> wrote: >> > ----- Original Message ----- >> >> > usage/requirement as well. Bringing the benefits of supporting dash to… >> >> > the satisfaction of pedantically using the POSIX /bin/sh path as >> >> > frequently as possible? >> >> >> >> Also known as portability, compatibility >> > >> > Upstreams can be interested in cross-distro portability and compatibility. >> > I don’t see much benefit for Fedora and Fedora’s users. >> > >> >> Fedora is never upstream? Ever? > > The cases where Fedora is both a distribution and upstream happen, but in > these cases the difference doesn’t matter. It’s the other cases, where the > roles are separate, that allow us to judge where the benefit, effort and > policy should be allocated. > Fedora is upstream for packaging and remixes. I tried to illustrate that, but you've cut it from the quotes. >> >> and transparency. >> > >> > Perhaps for changing the #! line; adding yet another programming language >> > to the OS would make it more complex and thus _reduce_ transparency. >> >> Not another programming language, one that is already being used. > > If they have so different features and syntax that people writing scripts > need to be aware of this, they are different languages. Or to put it the > other way, if they were the same languages then assumption that /bin/sh is > bash couldn’t matter. > And they're not the same, which is what the whole discussion about, so it does matter. >> >> Do we >> >> encourage people to turn compiler warnings off? >> > >> > No, but most compiler warnings are useful _for increasing quality >> > noticeable to users of Fedora_. A warning about use of a bash construct >> > when we are using bash doesn’t help us help users. >> >> Getting dependencies right isn't helpful? > > That’s what I said, and I think I said why. If you think that changing > dependencies, when it would change neither behavior nor on-disk contents is > helpful, could you explain how? > Because they're the true dependencies. Anyway I'm off to change gcc to a link to g++ on my systems because they're close enough it shouldn't matter. -- imalone http://ibmalone.blogspot.co.uk -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
