[PATCH] Fix typos and shell for MacOSX packaging scripts

Cristian Ionescu-Idbohrn cristian.ionescu-idbohrn at axis.com
Wed Oct 3 12:12:58 PDT 2012

On Tue, 2 Oct 2012, Dirk Hohndel wrote:
> Cristian Ionescu-Idbohrn <cristian.ionescu-idbohrn at axis.com> writes:
> >
> > Here's an incipient cleanup attempt, maybe controversial.  Should I
> > continue?
> In general I like where you are taking this. I /think/ you did the right
> thing (haven't looked at every single line, yet) and did the formatting
> change in its own commit that changed NOTHING ELSE but just the
> formatting.

Good, as that was my intention.

> On the other changes you have some of them where I'm not sure if your
> replacement code is actually the more portable one, but then I am
> definitely not shell scripting expert.
> I thought, for example, that the whole
> > -if test "x$GTK_DEBUG_LAUNCHER" != x; then
> thing was indeed because some shells don't deal with empty strings
> when doing comparisons.

Alright.  I think I see what you mean.  Though, who in his right mind
would attempt to build subsurface using a stoneage non-posix shell?

In that particular case, these forms (all posix) are equivalent:

	if test -n "$GTK_DEBUG_LAUNCHER"; then
	if test "$GTK_DEBUG_LAUNCHER"; then
	if [ "$GTK_DEBUG_LAUNCHER" ]; then

The later is the one I would use throughout.  Forget autoconf & Co ;)
Don't copy/paste that.  They seem to have another agenda, not that I know
what agenda that might be ;)

> But let's face it - we don't want to go totally overboard with this.
> What I'm aiming for is a well documented, easily readable shell script
> that is reasonably POSIX compliant and will survive if a different POSIX
> shell ends up being used.

By saying "reasonably POSIX", do you mean more or less posix?  Because,
the way I think of it, it can be either posix-complient or non-posix.
AFAIK, bsd uses ash and they work really hard to enforce posix.  Why on
earth would Apple find it appropriate to try to do something different?

> I'm inclined to take your commits as they are after I had a chance to
> test them on my Mac (only have access to my Linux system right this
> minute).

Good.  Than I can go on, I presume ;)

> Thanks for working on this, Cristian!

No problem.  Anytime.  I like this stuff.  It's fun.  More to come...

This bashism:


has always bothered me, so I'll try to get that out of the way, next.
Debian has a useful utility: checkbashisms.  Perl script.  No
odd dependencies.  Very useful.  I use it alot.

What do:


show ona a MacOSX, anyway?  Worst case ;)  The standard replacement is an
'expr' fork, but I'd very much like to avoid that.  When possible, to use
shell builtin parameter expansion instead.



More information about the subsurface mailing list