[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Bash vs. sh
From: |
Joel E. Denny |
Subject: |
Re: Bash vs. sh |
Date: |
Tue, 22 Apr 2008 19:39:32 -0400 (EDT) |
On Tue, 22 Apr 2008, Jim Meyering wrote:
> "Joel E. Denny" <address@hidden> wrote:
> There's already a bootstrap module in gnulib.
You mean build-aux/bootstrap?
> We sync things around periodically.
I was hoping for something more formal: all developers commit their
bootstrap-inner.m4sh changes to gnulib instead of to their own projects.
Writing bootstrap to download bootstrap-inner.m4sh automatically might
help encourage this practice. Then I don't have to hunt through the logs
of several other projects in order to avoid reinventing bootstrapping
fixes.
> Patches welcome, of course.
I'll wait at least until after Eric's two-stage bootstrap is ready.
Maybe someone will beat me to it.
Thanks for your responses.
- Re: Bash vs. sh, Joel E. Denny, 2008/04/04
- Re: Bash vs. sh, Joel E. Denny, 2008/04/20
- Re: Bash vs. sh, Jim Meyering, 2008/04/22
- Re: Bash vs. sh, Eric Blake, 2008/04/22
- Re: Bash vs. sh, Jim Meyering, 2008/04/22
- Message not available
- Re: Bash vs. sh, Jim Meyering, 2008/04/22
- Re: Bash vs. sh, Joel E. Denny, 2008/04/22
- Re: Bash vs. sh, Jim Meyering, 2008/04/22
- Re: Bash vs. sh,
Joel E. Denny <=
- Re: Bash vs. sh, Jim Meyering, 2008/04/23
- Re: Bash vs. sh, Joel E. Denny, 2008/04/23
- Re: Bash vs. sh, Jim Meyering, 2008/04/23
- Re: Bash vs. sh, Eric Blake, 2008/04/24