Re: gnulib-tool should be interruptible

[Paul Eggert]

Ralf Wildenhues <address@hidden> writes:

>> That doesn't sound like much of a real problem, but if it is, this
>> looks to me like a band-aid that doesn't solve things; it'd cut down
>> the number of bogus messages without eliminating them.
>
> This I don't understand.  If I do the output with one `echo', with sane
> shells

That's the part I'm worried about.  :-)

> that will cause exactly one `write',

Aren't they often buffered, if the string is long enough?

But I see your point: I probably didn't fully understand the problem.

> I'm merely pondering whether to make the ChangeLog
> entry read
>         * gnulib-tool (func_version): Create output all at once, to
>         avoid triggering unnecessary SIGPIPEs, in case the caller traps
>         it.
> or
>       * gnulib-tool (func_version): Create output all at once.

How about

        * gnulib-tool (func_version): Create output all at once.  This
        may help avoid triggering unnecessary SIGPIPEs, and at any
        rate it doesn't hurt.