same as before #3

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into
from

Projects

None yet

3 participants

@grimreaper
Contributor

No description provided.

@dtag-dbu
Owner

Dera Grimreaper;

Thanks for your improvements/changings/patches. I will review them during the next days. Do you want to be mentioned as contributor under the name 'grimreaper' or under another 'more real' name?

Best regards
Karsten (aka peerceval)


Deutsche Telekom AG
Products & Innovation
Karsten Reincke, PMP®
Fach-Senior Manager T&P/A&S/TM
T-Online-Allee 1
64295 Darmstadt
Tel.: +49 6151 680 - 8941
Fax.: +49 6151 680 - 2529
E-Mail k.reincke@telekom.de
http://www.telekom.de/

Erleben, was verbindet.

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: grimreaper [mailto:reply@reply.github.com]
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 22. März 2012 00:17
An: Open Source at DT
Betreff: [oslic] same as befor (#3)

You can merge this Pull Request by running:

git pull https://github.com/grimreaper/oslic patch-2

Or you can view, comment on it, or merge it online at:

#3

-- Commit Summary --

  • same as befor

-- File Changes --

M bin/gendist.sh (2)

-- Patch Links --

https://github.com/dtag-dbu/oslic/pull/3.patch
https://github.com/dtag-dbu/oslic/pull/3.diff


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
#3

@grimreaper
Contributor

On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 6:39 AM, Deutsche Telekom AG / P&I
reply@reply.github.com
wrote:

Dera Grimreaper;

Thanks for your improvements/changings/patches. I will review them during the next days. Do you want to be mentioned as contributor under the name 'grimreaper' or under another 'more real' name?

Eitan Adler works - thanks. :)

Eitan Adler

@dtag-dbu
Owner

Dear Grimreaper;

I am not really sure whether we shall take over your improvements. Please convince me (should be easily to do ;-)): Very often in GNU/Linux systems /bin/sh is a link to /bin/bash or /bin/dash. Sometimes I use indeed bash specific commands. And especially by using the commands 'export', 'setenv' etc. I am often misguiding myself. Therefore normally I explicitly hint to that shell I am really requiring. So, is it a really a good idea to generalize by using the bin/sh command?

BTW: Many thanks for hinting to that gendist file [it's a relict of the time without github integration]. I will immediately upgrade it on a correct version which covers all files.

Best regards

K. Reincke

Deutsche Telekom AG
Products & Innovation
Karsten Reincke, PMP®
Fach-Senior Manager T&P/A&S/TM
T-Online-Allee 1
64295 Darmstadt
Tel.: +49 6151 680 - 8941
Fax.: +49 6151 680 - 2529
E-Mail k.reincke@telekom.de
http://www.telekom.de/

Erleben, was verbindet.

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: grimreaper [mailto:reply@reply.github.com]
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 22. März 2012 13:14
An: Open Source at DT
Betreff: Re: [oslic] same as before (#3)

On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 6:39 AM, Deutsche Telekom AG / P&I
reply@reply.github.com
wrote:

Dera Grimreaper;

Thanks for your improvements/changings/patches. I will review them during the next days. Do you want to be mentioned as contributor under the name 'grimreaper' or under another 'more real' name?

Eitan Adler works - thanks. :)

Eitan Adler


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
#3 (comment)

@grimreaper
Contributor

On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 8:57 AM, Deutsche Telekom AG / P&I
reply@reply.github.com
wrote:

Dear Grimreaper;

I am not really sure whether we shall take over your improvements. Please convince me (should be easily to do ;-)):

Sure.

Very often in GNU/Linux systems /bin/sh is a link to /bin/bash or /bin/dash.

What about on non GNU/Linux systems such as Solaris, FreeBSD? Most of
them don't have bash as the default shell. Even if they did have bash
it would be installed to /usr/local/bin/bash instead of bash.

Sometimes I use indeed bash specific commands.

In my quick review I didn't notice any, but I did that late at night.

And especially by using the commands 'export', 'setenv' etc. I am often misguiding myself. >Therefore normally I explicitly hint to that shell I am really requiring.

The correct fix for this is to remove the bash specific features. Why
do you want to force users to install a specific shell on their
machines?

So, is it a really a good idea to generalize by using the bin/sh command?

Absolutely! It is standard, portable, and often faster. If you are
adamant about using non-portable non-standard features from bash you
should use #!/usr/bin/env bash which will (a) follow the user's
preference about which bash to use, and (b) find bash wherever it is.

Eitan Adler

@dtag-dbu
Owner

... many thanks. Wonderful solution. I will adopt your improvement (line 1 #/bin/sh) and will add the line "#!/usr/bin/env bash" as second line being commented out (as a reminder for myself for not using incompatible commands [and as a hint to an emergency solution])... and I will refresh my shell knowledge.. it's so long ago that I worked on a sun or anything else

Best reagrds

Deutsche Telekom AG
Products & Innovation
Karsten Reincke, PMP®
Fach-Senior Manager T&P/A&S/TM
T-Online-Allee 1
64295 Darmstadt
Tel.: +49 6151 680 - 8941
Fax.: +49 6151 680 - 2529
E-Mail k.reincke@telekom.de
http://www.telekom.de/

Erleben, was verbindet.

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: grimreaper [mailto:reply@reply.github.com]
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 22. März 2012 14:05
An: Open Source at DT
Betreff: Re: [oslic] same as before (#3)

On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 8:57 AM, Deutsche Telekom AG / P&I
reply@reply.github.com
wrote:

Dear Grimreaper;

I am not really sure whether we shall take over your improvements. Please convince me (should be easily to do ;-)):

Sure.

Very often in GNU/Linux systems /bin/sh is a link to /bin/bash or /bin/dash.

What about on non GNU/Linux systems such as Solaris, FreeBSD? Most of
them don't have bash as the default shell. Even if they did have bash
it would be installed to /usr/local/bin/bash instead of bash.

Sometimes I use indeed bash specific commands.

In my quick review I didn't notice any, but I did that late at night.

And especially by using the commands 'export', 'setenv' etc. I am often misguiding myself. >Therefore normally I explicitly hint to that shell I am really requiring.

The correct fix for this is to remove the bash specific features. Why
do you want to force users to install a specific shell on their
machines?

So, is it a really a good idea to generalize by using the bin/sh command?

Absolutely! It is standard, portable, and often faster. If you are
adamant about using non-portable non-standard features from bash you
should use #!/usr/bin/env bash which will (a) follow the user's
preference about which bash to use, and (b) find bash wherever it is.

Eitan Adler


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
#3 (comment)

@kreincke kreincke closed this Mar 26, 2013
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment