On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 07:24:57PM +0100, Chris Jones wrote: > Hi > > Apart from special cases like the ramdisk's /init, which is a script that > needs > to run in busybox's shell, everything should be using bash. There's no point > us > tying ourselves in knots trying to achieve POSIX compliance for the sake of > it, > when bashisms are super useful.
+1, especially for "tying ourselves in knots trying to achieve POSIX compliance for the sake of it" > > Cheers, > > Chris > > > On 14 April 2014 17:26, Ben Nemec <openst...@nemebean.com> wrote: > > tldr: I propose we use bash explicitly for all diskimage-builder scripts > (at least for the short-term - see details below). > > This is something that was raised on my linting changes to enable set -o > pipefail. That is a bash-ism, so it could break in the diskimage-builder > scripts that are run using /bin/sh. Two possible fixes for that: switch > to > /bin/bash, or don't use -o pipefail > > But I think this raises a bigger question - does diskimage-builder require > bash? If so, I think we should just add a rule to enforce that /bin/bash > is the shell used for everything. I know we have a bunch of bash-isms in > the code already, so at least in the short-term I think this is probably > the way to go, so we can get the benefits of things like -o pipefail and > lose the ambiguity we have right now. For reference, a quick grep of the > diskimage-builder source shows we have 150 scripts using bash explicitly > and only 24 that are plain sh, so making the code truly shell-agnostic is > likely to be a significant amount of work. > > In the long run it might be nice to have cross-shell compatibility, but if > we're going to do that I think we need a couple of things: 1) Someone to > do > the work (I don't have a particular need to run dib in not-bash, so I'm > not > signing up for that :-) 2) Testing in other shells - obviously just > changing /bin/bash to /bin/sh doesn't mean we actually support anything > but > bash. We really need to be gating on other shells if we're going to make > a > significant effort to support them. It's not good to ask reviewers to try > to catch every bash-ism proposed in a change. This also relates to some > of > the unit testing work that is going on right now too - if we had better > unit test coverage of the scripts we would be able to do this more easily. > > Thoughts? > > Thanks. > > -Ben > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > > > > -- > Cheers, > > Chris > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev -- Petr Blaho, pbl...@redhat.com Software Engineer _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
