> I guess you were looking at the right patch. I mean this one: > http://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2019-May/243380.html
I was referring to this patch indeed. Thanks. > > > Agreed; of course we shouldn't just use awk because we can. > > > > > > Though I think not implementing things in shell is often > > > lower risk, as we have no isolation in POSIX shell, we all > > > share the same variables etc. and the configure script is > > > quite big. Then shell is not suited for many tasks because > > > of the way it works > > > ... > > > > This actually sounds to me like you're saying we shouldn't use awk because > > we can, but rather use it where possible because it'd be better than shell. > > > > In other words: we should write new configure code in awk. > > > > Did I misinterpret the statement or its implications? > > You got me totally wrong :( I'm only human, it happens. But you didn't explain what you actually meant. Specifically: - What makes this patch a good candidate to use awk rather than shell like the rest of configure? - What should be the general criteria to choose a scripting language for future patches? On Saturday, May 4, 2019 10:43 PM, Alexander Strasser <eclip...@gmx.net> wrote: Hi! On 2019-05-04 06:28 +0000, avih wrote: > > On 2019-05-02 08:55 +0000, avih wrote: > > > > It seems awk is unconditionally required already. However I wanted to > > > > say that it's a very nice dep to have > > > > > > While it's possibly nicer than other deps to have, it's still better to > > > use > > > it IMHO only when it adds some value, like simpler code, better > > > performance, > > > compliance with some things, etc. > > > > Agreed; of course we shouldn't just use awk because we can. > > > > Though I think not implementing things in shell is often > > lower risk, as we have no isolation in POSIX shell, we all > > share the same variables etc. and the configure script is > > quite big. Then shell is not suited for many tasks because > > of the way it works > > ... > > This actually sounds to me like you're saying we shouldn't use awk because > we can, but rather use it where possible because it'd be better than shell. > > In other words: we should write new configure code in awk. > > Did I misinterpret the statement or its implications? You got me totally wrong :( [...] > > > > Did you look at the version I attached in this thread? Or the one I > > posted in the new patch set? > > > > I changed it to use an algorithm more similar to the latest shell > > version discussed here. > > I think so, yes. As I said, it's similar to the shell version. I don't > think it's worse in any way, but I also didn't see an added value. > > Please post a link to the actual patch if you think I'm not looking > at the patch version you refer to. I guess you were looking at the right patch. I mean this one: http://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2019-May/243380.html Alexander _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email ffmpeg-devel-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe". _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email ffmpeg-devel-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".