Re: Autotest test suite size

[Mark D. Baushke]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Akim Demaille <akim@epita.fr> writes:

>  > Derek Robert Price <derek@ximbiot.com> writes:
>  >> How many systems will we lose if we start using shell functions?
> 
>  > Nobody important will lose.  The few hosts that lack them
>  > (e.g., SunOS 4.x) can import bash or pdksh and then use that.
>  > SunOS 4.1.3 already needs to do this anyway, because of a bad
>  > bug in its here-document handling, a bug that Sun won't fix.
> 
>  > So I'd say go for it, and assume shell functions.
> 
>  > Mark D. Baushke sugguested having shell scripts as a substitute.  That
>  > would work, but it's a poor substitute.  Shell functions can do things
>  > that scripts can't, e.g. they can exit from the calling shell.  It's
>  > not worth wasting our time worrying about porting to such a
>  > substitute.  Let's just use shell functions.
> 
> Yes.  I think that 2.60 should use Shell functions in Autotest (with
> support from M4sh).  Paolo has already made suggestions.

Excellent... Hmmm... has 2.59 already been released or is it close to
release? (I'm just curious as to why the support waits a release.)

        Thanks,
        -- Mark
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQE/udaj3x41pRYZE/gRAv/1AKDIz3ur6xw3bdJ9tkcAHt4sfqKQggCg5jf8
Bix/vyF4nmWYxhZaTUz20vQ=
=yPiP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----