Am 03.07.2010 21:07, schrieb Victor Lowther:
> On Sun, 2010-06-27 at 22:10 -0500, Victor Lowther wrote:
>> I have spent some time over the last month or so rewriting the Arch
>> initscripts in idiomatic bash -- since they rely on bash-specific
>> features, trying to keep them fairly POSIX is rathe
On Sun, 2010-06-27 at 22:10 -0500, Victor Lowther wrote:
> I have spent some time over the last month or so rewriting the Arch
> initscripts in idiomatic bash -- since they rely on bash-specific
> features, trying to keep them fairly POSIX is rather a waste of time and
> a net performance loss --
On 06/29/2010 11:44 AM, Victor Lowther wrote:
We might want to steal some content from
http://mywiki.wooledge.org/BashGuide/Practices to update the Arch bash coding
page.
Regardless which way the bashification issue goes, I agree with Victor, the
above contains a very good rule-set for ba
On Jul 2, 2010, at 10:35 AM, "Kurt J. Bosch" > wrote:
2010-06-28 05:10, Victor Lowther:
You can browse changes I have made in the git repo @
http://git.fnordovax.org/arch-initscripts/log/?h=bashification
The feed link appears broken to me.
type='application/atom+xml'/>
Thanks. I might e
2010-06-28 05:10, Victor Lowther:
You can browse changes I have made in the git repo @
http://git.fnordovax.org/arch-initscripts/log/?h=bashification
The feed link appears broken to me.
href='http://git.fnordovax.orghttp://git.fnordovax.org/arch-initscripts/atom/?h=bashification'
type='applic
On Wed 30 Jun 2010 18:48 +0200, Philipp Überbacher wrote:
> Excerpts from Aaron Griffin's message of 2010-06-30 17:55:40 +0200:
> > On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 10:00 AM, Caleb Cushing
> > wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 1:57 PM, Aaron Griffin
> > > wrote:
> > >> I have no idea where the number
>Message: 9
>Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 18:48:37 +0200
>From: Philipp ?berbacher
>Subject: Re: [arch-general] Bashification of initscripts for moderate
>speedup
>To: arch-general
>Message-ID: <1277916464-sup-8...@eris>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
&g
On Jun 30, 2010, at 12:40 PM, Thomas Bächler
wrote:
Am 28.06.2010 05:10, schrieb Victor Lowther:
I have spent some time over the last month or so rewriting the Arch
initscripts in idiomatic bash -- since they rely on bash-specific
features, trying to keep them fairly POSIX is rather a waste
Am 28.06.2010 05:10, schrieb Victor Lowther:
> I have spent some time over the last month or so rewriting the Arch
> initscripts in idiomatic bash -- since they rely on bash-specific
> features, trying to keep them fairly POSIX is rather a waste of time and
> a net performance loss -- using bash-st
Excerpts from Aaron Griffin's message of 2010-06-30 17:55:40 +0200:
> On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 10:00 AM, Caleb Cushing
> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 1:57 PM, Aaron Griffin
> > wrote:
> >> I have no idea where the number came from, but both 80 and 132 are
> >> standard column widths used f
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 10:00 AM, Caleb Cushing wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 1:57 PM, Aaron Griffin
> wrote:
>> I have no idea where the number came from, but both 80 and 132 are
>> standard column widths used for normal and wide terminals.
>
> should be 78 columns I do believe that's the st
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 1:57 PM, Aaron Griffin wrote:
> I have no idea where the number came from, but both 80 and 132 are
> standard column widths used for normal and wide terminals.
should be 78 columns I do believe that's the standard for kernel/git
it allows for email comments more easily app
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 12:47 PM, Loui Chang wrote:
> On Tue 29 Jun 2010 09:27 -0500, Dan McGee wrote:
>> Which is change the modelines? No thanks.
>>
>> http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/DeveloperWiki:Bash_Coding_Style
>
> Neat. Where does the 132 columns come from?
Back in the day of real phy
On Tue 29 Jun 2010 09:27 -0500, Dan McGee wrote:
> Which is change the modelines? No thanks.
>
> http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/DeveloperWiki:Bash_Coding_Style
Neat. Where does the 132 columns come from?
On Jun 28, 2010, at 11:36 AM, Isaac Dupree > wrote:
On 06/28/10 09:35, Victor Lowther wrote:
On Jun 28, 2010, at 7:42 AM, Caleb Cushing
wrote:
On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 11:10 PM, Victor Lowther
wrote:
Questions, comments, flames, etc. welcome.
why go this way instead of the other? (clari
On Jun 29, 2010, at 9:27 AM, Dan McGee wrote:
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 8:20 AM, Victor Lowther
wrote:
On Jun 29, 2010, at 5:55 AM, solsTiCe d'Hiver >
wrote:
Le lundi 28 juin 2010 à 17:55 +0200, Lukáš Jirkovský a écrit :
Actually I see the point of doing this. Arch is a modern
distributio
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 8:20 AM, Victor Lowther
wrote:
> On Jun 29, 2010, at 5:55 AM, solsTiCe d'Hiver
> wrote:
>
>> Le lundi 28 juin 2010 à 17:55 +0200, Lukáš Jirkovský a écrit :
>>>
>>> Actually I see the point of doing this. Arch is a modern distribution
>>> with the newest software around so
I have uploaded some shiny bootchart runs from booting with and
without bashification on my laptop to http://bugs.archlinux.org/20006
On Jun 29, 2010, at 5:55 AM, solsTiCe d'Hiver
wrote:
Le lundi 28 juin 2010 à 17:55 +0200, Lukáš Jirkovský a écrit :
Actually I see the point of doing this. Arch is a modern distribution
with the newest software around so why stuck with shell constructs
which are probably dozens of years old?
Le lundi 28 juin 2010 à 17:55 +0200, Lukáš Jirkovský a écrit :
> Actually I see the point of doing this. Arch is a modern distribution
> with the newest software around so why stuck with shell constructs
> which are probably dozens of years old?
>
> Lukas
Yes. I definitely agree. We have to pray
On Mon 28 Jun 2010 10:03 -0500, Victor Lowther wrote:
> On Jun 28, 2010, at 9:49 AM, Loui Chang wrote:
> >Depends on what you define as Arch.
> >I've heard that Arch is what you make of it. Hehe.
> >I don't know if you could disqualify it from a difference of one file.
>
> For me, part of it is th
On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 12:36 PM, Isaac Dupree
wrote:
> IIRC, Busybox shell can get notable speed boost by incorporating versions of
> tools like sed into the same busybox executable, such that it often doesn't
> have to fork and load other short-lived programs.
I don't think it loads them into i
On 06/28/10 09:35, Victor Lowther wrote:
On Jun 28, 2010, at 7:42 AM, Caleb Cushing wrote:
On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 11:10 PM, Victor Lowther
wrote:
Questions, comments, flames, etc. welcome.
why go this way instead of the other? (clarification why go deeper
into bash instead of trying to po
On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 11:03 AM, Victor Lowther
wrote:
> For me, part of it is that bash is used pretty ubiquitously as the
> configuration and scripting language of choice. Changing that to posix sh in
> one of the main config files would be a big shift.
there seems to be a shift to dash as the
Actually I see the point of doing this. Arch is a modern distribution
with the newest software around so why stuck with shell constructs
which are probably dozens of years old?
Lukas
On Jun 28, 2010, at 9:49 AM, Loui Chang wrote:
On Mon 28 Jun 2010 09:13 -0500, Victor Lowther wrote:
On Jun 28, 2010, at 8:59 AM, Loui Chang wrote:
On Mon 28 Jun 2010 08:04 -0500, Dan McGee wrote:
On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 7:42 AM, Caleb Cushing
wrote:
On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 11:10 PM, Vic
On Mon 28 Jun 2010 09:13 -0500, Victor Lowther wrote:
> On Jun 28, 2010, at 8:59 AM, Loui Chang wrote:
>
> >On Mon 28 Jun 2010 08:04 -0500, Dan McGee wrote:
> >>On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 7:42 AM, Caleb Cushing
> >> wrote:
> >>>On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 11:10 PM, Victor Lowther
> >>> wrote:
> Ques
On Jun 28, 2010, at 8:59 AM, Loui Chang wrote:
On Mon 28 Jun 2010 08:04 -0500, Dan McGee wrote:
On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 7:42 AM, Caleb Cushing > wrote:
On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 11:10 PM, Victor Lowther
wrote:
Questions, comments, flames, etc. welcome.
why go this way instead of the other? (
On Mon 28 Jun 2010 08:04 -0500, Dan McGee wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 7:42 AM, Caleb Cushing
> wrote:
> > On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 11:10 PM, Victor Lowther
> > wrote:
> >> Questions, comments, flames, etc. welcome.
> >
> > why go this way instead of the other? (clarification why go deeper
>
On Jun 28, 2010, at 7:42 AM, Caleb Cushing
wrote:
On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 11:10 PM, Victor Lowther
wrote:
Questions, comments, flames, etc. welcome.
why go this way instead of the other? (clarification why go deeper
into bash instead of trying to posix-ify the scripts)
Because arrays an
On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 7:42 AM, Caleb Cushing wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 11:10 PM, Victor Lowther
> wrote:
>> Questions, comments, flames, etc. welcome.
>
> why go this way instead of the other? (clarification why go deeper
> into bash instead of trying to posix-ify the scripts)
Because w
On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 11:10 PM, Victor Lowther
wrote:
> Questions, comments, flames, etc. welcome.
why go this way instead of the other? (clarification why go deeper
into bash instead of trying to posix-ify the scripts)
--
Caleb Cushing
http://xenoterracide.blogspot.com
I have spent some time over the last month or so rewriting the Arch
initscripts in idiomatic bash -- since they rely on bash-specific
features, trying to keep them fairly POSIX is rather a waste of time and
a net performance loss -- using bash-style conditionals is about 30%
faster when nothing nee
33 matches
Mail list logo
