[PATCH] Fix typos and shell for MacOSX packaging scripts
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
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
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...
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.
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