RE: Pending patches for generic build script

["Rafael Kitover" <caelum at debian dot org>]

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Igor Pechtchanski
>Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2004 7:23 AM
>Subject: Re: Pending patches for generic build script
>
>On Fri, 13 Feb 2004, Charles Wilson wrote:
>
>> Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
>>
>> >>false || true
>> >>
>> >>As a bonus, this construct documents that this particular line can
>> >>return a false value.
>> >
>> >
>> > I see.  Well, this does look reasonably readable...  Another problem with
>> > "set +e" that I vaguely recall reading about is that it may not always be
>> > propagated into functions...  If you're willing to test this and make sure
>> > it always works properly, and if nobody else protests, I'll consider
>> > patching the generic-build-script.
>>
>> Yes, I've never liked the silly looking '&& \' syntax in the gbs.  If
>> propagation of 'set +e' into functions is a problem, then just have each
>> function re-do it...
>
>Chuck,
>
>Ok, great!  Since you're in favor of it (and you're the ultimate authority
>on the gbs, I'm just temporarily handling the maintainer duties), it makes
>me much more confident.  I'll let Rafael test out the propagation of "set
>+e" into functions, and then make the appropriate change.
[SNIP]
>
>Umm, yes, since bash is in the "Base" category, any Cygwin machine will
>have it, and it's not like the performance of the gbs itself is an
>issue...
>
>I think I'll wait until all the others' patches have been applied, though,
>and then do it in one shot as one big change.
>
>Rafael, if you're reading this, could you do the tests with both sh and
>bash, and let me know if bash behaves better with respect to "set +e"?  If
>it does, we can switch the gbs to use bash.
>	Igor

Of course, waiting for the various gbs patches to go through first makes
perfect sense. I was just bringing up the issue for discussion, it's not an
emergency, we have plenty of those over on the main list :)

What I was planning to do was make a canonical Cygwin package, kind of like GNU
Hello, using Hello as a base, and call it "boffo" to match the setup
documentation :) Eventually we'll be at a point were a new maintainer can get a
copy of boffo, tweak it, make their package, and have the package script do
some basic sanity checks. Also add some sort of selftest function for the gbs
against the canonical package, making development of the gbs itself a bit
easier (it can really suck when you have to wait half an hour for a build to go
through to check a minor tweak in the package script...)

Another feature I've dreamt up is have an "update-script" function for the gbs,
such that you could run pkg/CYGWIN-PATCHES/pkg.sh update-script which would get
the latest copy out of cvs or wherever is appropriate, and patch the
maintainer's script with the latest tweaks, as an interactive patch if
necessary.

-- 
Rafael