This is the mail archive of the
ecos-discuss@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the eCos project.
RE: Improvement to makemakefile script
- From: "Koeller, T." <Thomas dot Koeller at baslerweb dot com>
- To: 'Jonathan Larmour' <jifl at eCosCentric dot com>
- Cc: "ecos-discuss (E-Mail)" <ecos-discuss at sources dot redhat dot com>
- Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 14:52:56 +0100
- Subject: [ECOS] RE: Improvement to makemakefile script
Given the fact that 100% of the ecos development is done
on either cygwin or linux systems, both of which have a
bash shell, I really wonder if this kind of 'openness'
gives us anything in return. Why not just change
'#! /bin/sh' to '#! /bin/bash' and enjoy the benefits
of a more comfortable environment?
tk
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jonathan Larmour [mailto:jifl at eCosCentric dot com]
> Sent: Friday, March 28, 2003 2:26 PM
> To: Koeller, T.
> Cc: ecos-discuss (E-Mail)
> Subject: [ECOS] Re: Improvement to makemakefile script
>
>
> Koeller, T. wrote:
> > Jonathan,
> >
> > there are some more thougths about possible improvements
> > to the makemakefile script I would like to share with you
> > and of course anyone else who may care:
> >
> > You rejeceted my use of $(command) in favor of `command`.
> > Does this mean you do not want bash-specific things to
> > be used (or is it even bash-specific, I'm not quite sure
> > about that)?
>
> Yep.
>
> > On the other hand, the PACKAGEVER thing is
> > definitly very bash-specific,
>
> ${1:-default} is standard sh I believe.
>
> > and not very well-designed
> > either, as it depends on the particular position of the
> > command-line argument.
>
> ? It's the _only_ allowed argument so $1 had better be right :-).
>
> > I thought of using 'getopts' for argument parsing. This
> > would also allow for easy addition of more arguments.
> > One thing I find particularly desirable is the ability
> > to specify which doclist file to use. This would give us
> > full position independence. But I am afraid you would be
> > opposed to using 'getopts', too, or wouldn't you?
>
> Yep, sorry. But there are pretty standard simple ways to
> parse arguments
> in standard sh just using a for loop and a "case".
>
> Jifl
> --
> eCosCentric http://www.eCosCentric.com/ The eCos and
> RedBoot experts
> --[ "You can complain because roses have thorns, or you ]--
> --[ can rejoice because thorns have roses." -Lincoln ]--
> Opinions==mine
>
>
> --
> Before posting, please read the FAQ:
http://sources.redhat.com/fom/ecos
and search the list archive: http://sources.redhat.com/ml/ecos-discuss
--
Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://sources.redhat.com/fom/ecos
and search the list archive: http://sources.redhat.com/ml/ecos-discuss