Re: [PATCH 4/5] remove shell function "spy"

[Paolo Bonzini]

> More evidence that relying on shell functions is correct: ever since autoconf 
> 2.62, autotest has been using shell functions without explicitly requiring 
> them 
> (it was only suggesting them).

Indeed, though how many people run something as slow as autotest on old,
and hence probably not-so-fast, systems? :-)

> If we don't apply Paolo's patch 5, then 
> we should really check in something like this, to make autotest's use of 
> shell 
> functions explicit (rather than relying on the luck of suggestions being 
> met).  
> However, Paolo's patch makes AS_PREPARE require rather than suggest shell 
> functions, at which point this patch is nothing more than documentation.  So 
> does anyone still think this is worth pushing?  I'm personally thinking of 
> dropping it, with just this mail as an archive of why.

Yes, indeed, unless for some weird reason we cannot apply patch 5 (which
would be sad).  In fact depending on available free time I'd like to
follow up with *autoconf* usage of shell functions.

> On the other hand, I've noticed that we don't do any sanity checking if 
> CONFIG_SHELL is set.  Would it make sense to require that CONFIG_SHELL can 
> pass 
> all of the required tests, and if not, complain to the user and abort rather 
> than the current behavior of trying to limp along until the use of a required 
> feature finally trips up the script?

Yes, that would probably be better.

Paolo