Re: [arch-general] [PATCH 01/48] Bashification of initscripts
Am 08.09.2010 06:07, schrieb Victor Lowther: Blame my ongoing Emacs education. I learned about (custom-set-variables '(indent-tabs-mode nil)) after doing most of the work, and dropped the whitespace cleanup patches due to size. Otherwise, I ignored the vim modelines -- 2 characters per indentation is not really enough, and most of the preexisting code happily ignored it anyways. Yeah, the code was very inconsistent to begin with. And whitespace cleanup patches are ugly, nobody bothered to do them so far. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [arch-general] [PATCH 01/48] Bashification of initscripts
On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 3:32 PM, Thomas Bächler tho...@archlinux.org wrote:
Am 30.06.2010 23:47, schrieb Victor Lowther:
Despite efforts to make the initscripts POSIX, we use bash 4.0 features.
Bashifying this framework should result in about a 30% speedup, assuming no
IO latency and that all programs we call also take zero time. :)
I just pushed the patches - I was going to do more review of some of
them, but I am apparently too busy. Please post any patches (especially
if a correction of patch 21 is needed, I haven't finished reading the
discussion) rebased on the current initscripts.git.
Your last patch has a typo (missed close paren):
diff --git a/rc.sysinit b/rc.sysinit
index b25f7ac..dc916a2 100755
--- a/rc.sysinit
+++ b/rc.sysinit
@@ -275,7 +275,7 @@ stat_busy Removing Leftover Files
/bin/rm -f /var/lock/* /dev/null
/bin/rm -rf /tmp/* /tmp/.* /dev/null
/bin/rm -f /forcefsck /dev/null
-[[ -d /var/run ]] /usr/bin/find /var/run/ \! -type d -delete )
+[[ -d /var/run ]] /usr/bin/find /var/run/ \! -type d -delete
: | /var/run/utmp
/bin/chmod 0664 /var/run/utmp
# Keep {x,k,g}dm happy with xorg
Re: [arch-general] [PATCH 01/48] Bashification of initscripts
On Tue, Sep 07, 2010 at 09:51:59PM -0500, Victor Lowther wrote:
On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 3:32 PM, Thomas Bächler tho...@archlinux.org wrote:
Am 30.06.2010 23:47, schrieb Victor Lowther:
Despite efforts to make the initscripts POSIX, we use bash 4.0 features.
Bashifying this framework should result in about a 30% speedup, assuming no
IO latency and that all programs we call also take zero time. :)
I just pushed the patches - I was going to do more review of some of
them, but I am apparently too busy. Please post any patches (especially
if a correction of patch 21 is needed, I haven't finished reading the
discussion) rebased on the current initscripts.git.
Your last patch has a typo (missed close paren):
-snip-
There's a typo in the network script from commit a334b36b:
diff --git a/network b/network
index 20ff9c7..5abb824 100755
--- a/network
+++ b/network
@@ -96,7 +96,7 @@ rtup()
rtdown()
{
-if [[ ! $1 ]; then
+if [[ ! $1 ]]; then
echo usage: $0 rtdown route_name
return 1
fi
Re: [arch-general] [PATCH 01/48] Bashification of initscripts
On Tue, Sep 07, 2010 at 10:32:28PM +0200, Thomas Bächler wrote: Am 30.06.2010 23:47, schrieb Victor Lowther: Despite efforts to make the initscripts POSIX, we use bash 4.0 features. Bashifying this framework should result in about a 30% speedup, assuming no IO latency and that all programs we call also take zero time. :) I just pushed the patches - I was going to do more review of some of them, but I am apparently too busy. Please post any patches (especially if a correction of patch 21 is needed, I haven't finished reading the discussion) rebased on the current initscripts.git. I'm noticing that in general, the vim modelines aren't followed. Not sure what editor was used to rebase these scripts, but the mix of tabs and spaces for indents is somewhat irritating. I'm about to send a pair of patches (neither of which address this) but which follow the modeline. d
Re: [arch-general] [PATCH 01/48] Bashification of initscripts
On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 10:47 PM, Dave Reisner d...@falconindy.com wrote: On Tue, Sep 07, 2010 at 10:32:28PM +0200, Thomas Bächler wrote: Am 30.06.2010 23:47, schrieb Victor Lowther: Despite efforts to make the initscripts POSIX, we use bash 4.0 features. Bashifying this framework should result in about a 30% speedup, assuming no IO latency and that all programs we call also take zero time. :) I just pushed the patches - I was going to do more review of some of them, but I am apparently too busy. Please post any patches (especially if a correction of patch 21 is needed, I haven't finished reading the discussion) rebased on the current initscripts.git. I'm noticing that in general, the vim modelines aren't followed. Not sure what editor was used to rebase these scripts, but the mix of tabs and spaces for indents is somewhat irritating. I'm about to send a pair of patches (neither of which address this) but which follow the modeline. Blame my ongoing Emacs education. I learned about (custom-set-variables '(indent-tabs-mode nil)) after doing most of the work, and dropped the whitespace cleanup patches due to size. Otherwise, I ignored the vim modelines -- 2 characters per indentation is not really enough, and most of the preexisting code happily ignored it anyways. d
Re: [arch-general] [PATCH 01/48] Bashification of initscripts
On Sat, Jul 31, 2010 at 11:54 AM, Thomas Bächler tho...@archlinux.org wrote: Am 31.07.2010 18:44, schrieb Victor Lowther: On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 5:51 PM, Thomas Bächler tho...@archlinux.org wrote: Am 23.07.2010 22:58, schrieb Victor Lowther: After looking over it again, you are correct -- split into array does not do The Right Thing here. It will be easy to fix -- by the time you read this it will have been fixed and rebased back into bashification-redux. It is, thanks. I'll have to look at that in more detail when I am less tired. When that's done, I can release new initscripts so we can do lng testing. How goes the rest of the review? I only wanted to have a closer look at the cryptsetup patch before I pull this into master. But as you noticed, I didn't take the time to do so yet. No problem. Anything I can do to help?
Re: [arch-general] [PATCH 01/48] Bashification of initscripts
On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 5:51 PM, Thomas Bächler tho...@archlinux.org wrote: Am 23.07.2010 22:58, schrieb Victor Lowther: After looking over it again, you are correct -- split into array does not do The Right Thing here. It will be easy to fix -- by the time you read this it will have been fixed and rebased back into bashification-redux. It is, thanks. I'll have to look at that in more detail when I am less tired. When that's done, I can release new initscripts so we can do lng testing. How goes the rest of the review?
Re: [arch-general] [PATCH 01/48] Bashification of initscripts
Am 31.07.2010 18:44, schrieb Victor Lowther: On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 5:51 PM, Thomas Bächler tho...@archlinux.org wrote: Am 23.07.2010 22:58, schrieb Victor Lowther: After looking over it again, you are correct -- split into array does not do The Right Thing here. It will be easy to fix -- by the time you read this it will have been fixed and rebased back into bashification-redux. It is, thanks. I'll have to look at that in more detail when I am less tired. When that's done, I can release new initscripts so we can do lng testing. How goes the rest of the review? I only wanted to have a closer look at the cryptsetup patch before I pull this into master. But as you noticed, I didn't take the time to do so yet. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [arch-general] [PATCH 01/48] Bashification of initscripts
Am 17.07.2010 16:24, schrieb Victor Lowther: Sorry for taking so long. Apart from squashing the trivial bashifications, all patches I didn't comment on are ACKed. That is cool. I went ahead and reworked/squashed everthing I considered a trivial bashification into 6 or 7 patches after taking into account the feedback from the ML. The result is the bashification-redux branch @ git://fnordovax.org/~victor/arch-initscripts -- it is now 16 patches instead of 48, but the end result is exactly the same. I can post it to the ML if you like. I looked over the new branch and found it much more readable. And although some of the patches are not 100% clean yet (at least one contains a trivial change that wasn't advertised in the commit), I like it. Just a remark about the cryptsetup/crypttab rework (that one is scary, and I didn't read it in details yet): The last column of crypttab can contain space, meaning that everything past the fourth column will be treated as one column (the options column). Did you take that into account? I don't think so. I know that crypttab is ugly and scary, and I was planning to replace it with something sane, I just never got around to actually doing it. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [arch-general] [PATCH 01/48] Bashification of initscripts
On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 7:29 AM, Thomas Bächler tho...@archlinux.org wrote: Am 17.07.2010 16:24, schrieb Victor Lowther: Sorry for taking so long. Apart from squashing the trivial bashifications, all patches I didn't comment on are ACKed. That is cool. I went ahead and reworked/squashed everthing I considered a trivial bashification into 6 or 7 patches after taking into account the feedback from the ML. The result is the bashification-redux branch @ git://fnordovax.org/~victor/arch-initscripts -- it is now 16 patches instead of 48, but the end result is exactly the same. I can post it to the ML if you like. I looked over the new branch and found it much more readable. And although some of the patches are not 100% clean yet (at least one contains a trivial change that wasn't advertised in the commit), I like it. Just a remark about the cryptsetup/crypttab rework (that one is scary, and I didn't read it in details yet): The last column of crypttab can contain space, meaning that everything past the fourth column will be treated as one column (the options column). Did you take that into account? I don't think so. After looking over it again, you are correct -- split into array does not do The Right Thing here. It will be easy to fix -- by the time you read this it will have been fixed and rebased back into bashification-redux. I know that crypttab is ugly and scary, and I was planning to replace it with something sane, I just never got around to actually doing it.
Re: [arch-general] [PATCH 01/48] Bashification of initscripts
Am 23.07.2010 22:58, schrieb Victor Lowther: After looking over it again, you are correct -- split into array does not do The Right Thing here. It will be easy to fix -- by the time you read this it will have been fixed and rebased back into bashification-redux. It is, thanks. I'll have to look at that in more detail when I am less tired. When that's done, I can release new initscripts so we can do lng testing. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [arch-general] [PATCH 01/48] Bashification of initscripts
On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 4:45 AM, Thomas Bächler tho...@archlinux.org wrote: First of all: Sorry that I haven't finished the review, I have been busy with work and the heat kept me from thinking clearly. Am 07.07.2010 06:25, schrieb Dan McGee: On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 11:03 PM, Allan McRae al...@archlinux.org wrote: Here is a quick review on all these patches. I recommend that the lvm and crypttab changes get a decent amount of testing before these go live as they are the biggest changes being done. Why has this been removed: -if [ -x /etc/rc.local.shutdown ]; then - /etc/rc.local.shutdown -fi Ah... it has been moved to another place in another commit. Please document these sorts of changes in your commit message and preferably do the entire move in one commit. If there was one thing I wasn't so fond of in these patches, it seemed like there were too many. The beauty of git is the ability to go back and squash and split patches in a way that makes a lot more sense to others- it might not have been the way or order you did things in, but you should try as hard as possible to make a commit the largest logical unit that makes sense, but still small enough to grasp fully. If there are ever closely-related changes strewn across multiple patches in a patch set, you should probably think about merging those commits. I agree with Dan here. For example, all the commits that are merely replace [ with [[ and no functional changes should be one commit only. Going back through and rewriting the patch series to do that will be jsut about as much effort as creating the original one was. If I had know that was what your preference was, I would have written it that way to begin with. Since the end result is going to be the same once the patch series is applied, though, I don't really see the point of making modifications beyond bugfixes. I will release new initscripts and mkinitcpio now with a fix that needs to go to core before we do such a major change in initscripts.
Re: [arch-general] [PATCH 01/48] Bashification of initscripts
Am 11.07.2010 14:20, schrieb Victor Lowther: Going back through and rewriting the patch series to do that will be jsut about as much effort as creating the original one was. If I had know that was what your preference was, I would have written it that way to begin with. Since the end result is going to be the same once the patch series is applied, though, I don't really see the point of making modifications beyond bugfixes. It is a matter of keeping the history readable. And it is simple: Just create a new branch based on master, cherry-pick the commits that do nothing but change [ to [[ and git merge --squash that branch into a new one. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [arch-general] [PATCH 01/48] Bashification of initscripts
On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 2:11 PM, Thomas Bächler tho...@archlinux.org wrote: No no, that wouldn't make sense. It should be this way: First all patches that actually change logic, then one big commit that just converts the _remaining_ [ to [[ with no additional logic changes involved. wouldn't it be better to do the other way around... first the mass conversions with no logic changes (more likely to be accepted?) then the ones with logic changes in case some get rejected. that way the mass conversion doesn't depend on logic changes by accident. -- Caleb Cushing http://xenoterracide.blogspot.com
Re: [arch-general] [PATCH 01/48] Bashification of initscripts
On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 1:11 PM, Thomas Bächler tho...@archlinux.org wrote: Am 11.07.2010 15:12, schrieb Victor Lowther: On Sun, 2010-07-11 at 14:26 +0200, Thomas Bächler wrote: Am 11.07.2010 14:20, schrieb Victor Lowther: Going back through and rewriting the patch series to do that will be jsut about as much effort as creating the original one was. If I had know that was what your preference was, I would have written it that way to begin with. Since the end result is going to be the same once the patch series is applied, though, I don't really see the point of making modifications beyond bugfixes. It is a matter of keeping the history readable. And it is simple: Just create a new branch based on master, cherry-pick the commits that do nothing but change [ to [[ and git merge --squash that branch into a new one. If that is all you wnat done, that is easy enough to do. If you want all of the instances of trivial bashification split out from where I reworked the logic in the same patch, that is much less easy. No no, that wouldn't make sense. It should be this way: First all patches that actually change logic, then one big commit that just converts the _remaining_ [ to [[ with no additional logic changes involved. OK, I flattened all the patches I considered trivial into several large-ish patches, approx 1 or 2 per file in initscripts. I did not combine them all into one large patch because making all the logic changes independent generated more conflicts than I felt like dealing with. The new branch is named bashification-redux, and is available at git://fnordovax.org/~victor/arch-initscripts. If you want me to post them to the list again, I will, but the logic is unchanged. I hope to actually finish the review of the rest of the patches some time this week, sorry that I let so much time pass now. No worries, the first time I did this sort of thing I ended up maintaining the project. :)
Re: [arch-general] [PATCH 01/48] Bashification of initscripts
On Wed, 2010-07-07 at 14:03 +1000, Allan McRae wrote:
Here is a quick review on all these patches. I recommend that the lvm
and crypttab changes get a decent amount of testing before these go live
as they are the biggest changes being done.
Tighten up the console size finding code a bit.
Add some white space in test construct:
if ((STAT_COL==0)); then
if (( STAT_COL == 0 )); then
and throughout these patches
Maybe when all the other bugs are fixed. :)
Simplify the code that clears USECOLOR.
The following condition is removed with no commit message to explain why
if [ $? = 3 ]; then
TERM_COLOURS=8
An exitval of 3 means tput has no idea what terminal type we are running
on, and I figured that it is after to default to not using colorized
output in that case.
Replace trivial use of grep with bash regex conditional.
- if [ -n $CONSOLEMAP ] echo $LOCALE | /bin/grep -qi utf ; then
+ [[ $CONSOLEMAP $LOCALE =~ UTF|utf ]] CONSOLEMAP=
Use ... ${LOCALE,,} == utf ]] to accurately replicate the grep
Hmmm... I had not seen that parameter expansion before. New to bash
4.1?
Replace slightly too long echo staement with a here document.
^^ typo
I actually find the echo more readable
Well, then Thomas can keep it or drop it as he prefers.
Change the daemon runnign loop to use a case statement.
Quote daemon names.
Merge these commits
Both rc.single and rc.shutdown use the same code to kill everything.
+ # $1 = where we are being called from.
+ # This is used to determine which hooks to run.
- Add separater line here...
+ # Find daemons NOT in the DAEMONS array. Shut these down first
Why has this been removed:
-if [ -x /etc/rc.local.shutdown ]; then
- /etc/rc.local.shutdown
-fi
Ah... it has been moved to another place in another commit. Please
document these sorts of changes in your commit message and preferably do
the entire move in one commit.
Will fix.
Flatten LVM deactivation if block in rc.shutdown.
This change does not do the same thing and I do not see where it gets
replicated
-if [ -f /etc/crypttab -a -n $(/bin/grep -v ^# /etc/crypttab |
/bin/grep -v ^$) ]; then
+if [[ -f /etc/crypttab ]]; then
All the second bit of that test does is to see if there is actual
content in /etc/crypttab. I handle that in the read loop by zapping
comments and blank lines with parameter expansion and conditional checks
instead -- the greps end up reading the whole file anyways.
Replicated via parameter expansion and conditionals:
[[ $line ${line:0:1} != '#' ]] || continue
eval nspo=(${line%#*})
Also another:
+if [[ $USELVM =~ yes|YES
- ${USELVM,,} == yes
bashify bringing up the loopback adaptor.
Add a commit message as that is doing a lot more than bashifing.
Already fixed in the last round of rebasing.
Bashify locale setting.
$LOCALE =~ utf|UTF
Allan
--
Victor Lowther
LPIC2 UCP RHCE
Re: [arch-general] [PATCH 01/48] Bashification of initscripts
On Jul 6, 2010, at 11:25 PM, Dan McGee dpmc...@gmail.com wrote: If there was one thing I wasn't so fond of in these patches, it seemed like there were too many. Some people like larger patches, some like smaller ones. It is easier to merge smaller ones together than it is to split larger ones apart. The beauty of git is the ability to go back and squash and split patches in a way that makes a lot more sense to others- it might not have been the way or order you did things in, but you should try as hard as possible to make a commit the largest logical unit that makes sense, but still small enough to grasp fully. Ya, I wanted to get feedback to see if the larger Arch community was interested before going too much farther. If there are ever closely-related changes strewn across multiple patches in a patch set, you should probably think about merging those commits. -Dan
Re: [arch-general] [PATCH 01/48] Bashification of initscripts
Here is a quick review on all these patches. I recommend that the lvm
and crypttab changes get a decent amount of testing before these go live
as they are the biggest changes being done.
Tighten up the console size finding code a bit.
Add some white space in test construct:
if ((STAT_COL==0)); then
if (( STAT_COL == 0 )); then
and throughout these patches
Simplify the code that clears USECOLOR.
The following condition is removed with no commit message to explain why
if [ $? = 3 ]; then
TERM_COLOURS=8
Replace trivial use of grep with bash regex conditional.
- if [ -n $CONSOLEMAP ] echo $LOCALE | /bin/grep -qi utf ; then
+ [[ $CONSOLEMAP $LOCALE =~ UTF|utf ]] CONSOLEMAP=
Use ... ${LOCALE,,} == utf ]] to accurately replicate the grep
Replace slightly too long echo staement with a here document.
^^ typo
I actually find the echo more readable
Change the daemon runnign loop to use a case statement.
Quote daemon names.
Merge these commits
Both rc.single and rc.shutdown use the same code to kill everything.
+ # $1 = where we are being called from.
+ # This is used to determine which hooks to run.
- Add separater line here...
+ # Find daemons NOT in the DAEMONS array. Shut these down first
Why has this been removed:
-if [ -x /etc/rc.local.shutdown ]; then
- /etc/rc.local.shutdown
-fi
Ah... it has been moved to another place in another commit. Please
document these sorts of changes in your commit message and preferably do
the entire move in one commit.
Flatten LVM deactivation if block in rc.shutdown.
This change does not do the same thing and I do not see where it gets
replicated
-if [ -f /etc/crypttab -a -n $(/bin/grep -v ^# /etc/crypttab |
/bin/grep -v ^$) ]; then
+if [[ -f /etc/crypttab ]]; then
Also another:
+if [[ $USELVM =~ yes|YES
- ${USELVM,,} == yes
bashify bringing up the loopback adaptor.
Add a commit message as that is doing a lot more than bashifing.
Bashify locale setting.
$LOCALE =~ utf|UTF
Allan
Re: [arch-general] [PATCH 01/48] Bashification of initscripts
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 11:03 PM, Allan McRae al...@archlinux.org wrote: Here is a quick review on all these patches. I recommend that the lvm and crypttab changes get a decent amount of testing before these go live as they are the biggest changes being done. Why has this been removed: -if [ -x /etc/rc.local.shutdown ]; then - /etc/rc.local.shutdown -fi Ah... it has been moved to another place in another commit. Please document these sorts of changes in your commit message and preferably do the entire move in one commit. If there was one thing I wasn't so fond of in these patches, it seemed like there were too many. The beauty of git is the ability to go back and squash and split patches in a way that makes a lot more sense to others- it might not have been the way or order you did things in, but you should try as hard as possible to make a commit the largest logical unit that makes sense, but still small enough to grasp fully. If there are ever closely-related changes strewn across multiple patches in a patch set, you should probably think about merging those commits. -Dan
Re: [arch-general] [PATCH 01/48] Bashification of initscripts
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 6:07 PM, Victor Lowther victor.lowt...@gmail.com wrote: I don't see the need for this patch. functions is not supposed to be executed standalone, it is only source'd from bash scripts. It is a habit I have -- including the shebang line at the top makes sure my text editors automatically detect the right shell syntax for syntax highlighting. It has the added benefit of making it quite clear that the script will not work on another POSIX shell. -- Caleb Cushing http://xenoterracide.blogspot.com
Re: [arch-general] [PATCH 01/48] Bashification of initscripts
On Thu, 2010-07-01 at 22:58 -0400, Caleb Cushing wrote: On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 6:07 PM, Victor Lowther victor.lowt...@gmail.com wrote: I don't see the need for this patch. functions is not supposed to be executed standalone, it is only source'd from bash scripts. It is a habit I have -- including the shebang line at the top makes sure my text editors automatically detect the right shell syntax for syntax highlighting. It has the added benefit of making it quite clear that the script will not work on another POSIX shell. Indeed. -- Victor Lowther LPIC2 UCP RHCE
[arch-general] [PATCH 01/48] Bashification of initscripts
Despite efforts to make the initscripts POSIX, we use bash 4.0 features. Bashifying this framework should result in about a 30% speedup, assuming no IO latency and that all programs we call also take zero time. :) --- functions |2 +- 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) diff --git a/functions b/functions index 672eed2..023de35 100644 --- a/functions +++ b/functions @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@ -# +#!/bin/bash # initscripts functions # -- 1.7.1
Re: [arch-general] [PATCH 01/48] Bashification of initscripts
Am 30.06.2010 23:47, schrieb Victor Lowther: Despite efforts to make the initscripts POSIX, we use bash 4.0 features. Bashifying this framework should result in about a 30% speedup, assuming no IO latency and that all programs we call also take zero time. :) --- functions |2 +- 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) diff --git a/functions b/functions index 672eed2..023de35 100644 --- a/functions +++ b/functions @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@ -# +#!/bin/bash # initscripts functions I don't see the need for this patch. functions is not supposed to be executed standalone, it is only source'd from bash scripts. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [arch-general] [PATCH 01/48] Bashification of initscripts
On Wed, 2010-06-30 at 23:55 +0200, Thomas Bächler wrote: Am 30.06.2010 23:47, schrieb Victor Lowther: Despite efforts to make the initscripts POSIX, we use bash 4.0 features. Bashifying this framework should result in about a 30% speedup, assuming no IO latency and that all programs we call also take zero time. :) --- functions |2 +- 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) diff --git a/functions b/functions index 672eed2..023de35 100644 --- a/functions +++ b/functions @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@ -# +#!/bin/bash # initscripts functions I don't see the need for this patch. functions is not supposed to be executed standalone, it is only source'd from bash scripts. It is a habit I have -- including the shebang line at the top makes sure my text editors automatically detect the right shell syntax for syntax highlighting. -- Victor Lowther LPIC2 UCP RHCE
Re: [arch-general] [PATCH 01/48] Bashification of initscripts
Am 01.07.2010 00:07, schrieb Victor Lowther: On Wed, 2010-06-30 at 23:55 +0200, Thomas Bächler wrote: Am 30.06.2010 23:47, schrieb Victor Lowther: Despite efforts to make the initscripts POSIX, we use bash 4.0 features. Bashifying this framework should result in about a 30% speedup, assuming no IO latency and that all programs we call also take zero time. :) --- functions |2 +- 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) diff --git a/functions b/functions index 672eed2..023de35 100644 --- a/functions +++ b/functions @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@ -# +#!/bin/bash # initscripts functions I don't see the need for this patch. functions is not supposed to be executed standalone, it is only source'd from bash scripts. It is a habit I have -- including the shebang line at the top makes sure my text editors automatically detect the right shell syntax for syntax highlighting. Fair enough, but then that should be in the commit message. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
