On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 13:40:37 -0500 Aaron Griffin <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 12:12 PM, Xavier <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 6:39 PM, Aaron Griffin <[email protected]> > > wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Thanks for pointing that out. > >>>> I only did a quick look at the outputs of a recursive grep for getopt but > >>>> missed that it only found it in some comments... > >>> > >>> As makepkg shebangs for /bin/bash, why don't we use the getopts buildin > >>> of bash in the first place, was there a reason to not use it? > >>> > >>> To make usage of it could be a reduction in code size (will look into it > >>> if it's desired) and also would not be a portability issue IMO. > >> > >> It's not portable > >> > >> > > > > a bash builtin should be the most portable thing :) > > Doh, I skipped over the "builtin" part :S > > > We used getopts in the beginning, but it was changed to gnu getopt > > (probably because supporting both long and short options is much > > easier), and then we had to move to our own implementation for > > portability problem. > > This is what I meant > My 2 cents: portability is important, and code conciseness is more important then having a fancy interface with many possibilities. Isn't it just redundant/bloat to support both long and short ones? Dieter
