Re: [wmii] sh flame with Uriel

On 2/28/06, Anselm R. Garbe <garbeam_AT_wmii.de> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 01:45:44PM +0100, Uriel wrote:
> > I don't have time to argue every time you decide to change tons of
> > stuff for no reason, just to have to change it back again a few days,
> > weeks, months later.
>
> Nice attempt to evade my questions.
>
> > You are completely ignoring the main reason for 9base, which certainly
> > had nothing to do with performance or even sanity: portability.
>
> Portability? You're a funny joker:
> http://buildd.debian.org/build.php?arch=&pkg=9base
> Not to mention lib9/getcallerpc-<arch>.foo stuff.
> (at least the /bin/sh stuff will compile fine on this platforms)
This stuff should certainly not be a problem if things are done properly.
getcallerpc-*.c is a single line of code which should be trivial to add for
missing arches, actually you are missing a few that are already in p9p.

And it's only used in two places and both probably don't be long in p9p-base.

And you are missing the point, is _script_ portability that we are
talking about here,
or are you going fix the broken solaris awk, or keep users from
putting bash-isms in their rc scripts and then whine when someone
tries the same scripts on a sane shell?

> Do you think that ksh behaves differently on different
> platforms? If portability is an issue and some exotic WtfBSD
> user oder FooBarLinux user encounters portability issues, he
> just installs bash or ksh and goes with it.
Ah, great, so now we depend on gnu/base rather than 9base? and then the user
has to carefully edit all references to sh and replace them with their
locally installed bash. Marvelous. We could as well use perl, which is
ported everywhere and should work the same everywhere!

> There is absolutely
> no difference in installing p9p on such platforms, except that
> p9p does not compiles everywhere. Also, who cares for such
> exotic corner cases? Even Plan 9 contains sh.
You have really short memory, we had lots of subtle problems with sh
because implementations have subtle differences. Same goes for awk and
all the rest of stuff in 9base, that is the only reason it is there!

> Agreed, and I know that the development process of wmii was
> rather chaotic and CATD-alike[1], but it is my freetime project, so
> what. I can do what I like in my freetime.
And I don't have to waste my time with this, I already have wasted way
more than I should.

> It is unacceptable for me to maintain p9p-base, because that
> would be much more effort than maintaining a separate set of
> scripts. So, you can ask for a poll here
Should we have a poll about tabs too? Lusers don't have a clue what is
good for them.

> but I bet that only
> some users would agree with you, that it is a good idea to force
> people to download plan9port in order to run wmii.
Thanks for once more putting words in my mouth which I never said. I
said that 9base should _eventually_ be _merged_ with a modularized p9p
rather than keep adding stuff to it(which is what you have been doing
for the aforementioned portability reasons.)

If you and russ can't agree on how to modularize p9p, shame on you
two, but that is a political issue, not a technical one, and in in the
meantime 9base works just fine.

> So answer my questions please.
What questions?

uriel
Received on Tue Feb 28 2006 - 15:04:37 UTC