*PLEASE* edit the subject when you drift to another topic. Yes, portability is NOT the original topic of this thread; checksum verification on BSD systems is the original topic which is quite a bit narrower in scope.
On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 6:54 AM, Antonio Huete Jimenez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > 2008/6/2 Allan McRae <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> >> Antonio Huete Jimenez wrote: >> > >> > And there comes the idea I was talking about. I think that scripts >> > should behave according to the operating from where they are running >> > on. I'm doing some changes to scripts for doing so, but it will take >> > me few days to have something useable. >> > I also think that every portable code should be welcome whenever it >> > doesn't break anything in ArchLinux and made scripts runnable on other >> > OSes. >> > >> > What do you guys think? >> >> Using openssl for this is optimal because it works the same on all >> systems. Having code which detects operating system and uses specific >> software in each case is ugly and should be avoided if at all possible. >> > And how do you plan to do OS specific checks and/or configurations for > portability? The whole point is avoiding situations when we do need OS-specific checks and configurations. Take a look at the pacman and libalpm code- you will notice no checks for definitions of things like LINUX, BSD, DARWIN, CYGWIN (well one of these, but its documented and explained), etc. Portability means "runs everywhere", not "has a case in a switch statement for each platform". -Dan _______________________________________________ pacman-dev mailing list [email protected] http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/pacman-dev
