On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 13:40:37 -0500 Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 12:12 PM, Xavier <shiningxc@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 6:39 PM, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks for pointing that out. I only did a quick look at the outputs of a recursive grep for getopt but missed that it only found it in some comments...
As makepkg shebangs for /bin/bash, why don't we use the getopts buildin of bash in the first place, was there a reason to not use it?
To make usage of it could be a reduction in code size (will look into it if it's desired) and also would not be a portability issue IMO.
It's not portable
a bash builtin should be the most portable thing :)
Doh, I skipped over the "builtin" part :S
We used getopts in the beginning, but it was changed to gnu getopt (probably because supporting both long and short options is much easier), and then we had to move to our own implementation for portability problem.
This is what I meant
My 2 cents: portability is important, and code conciseness is more important then having a fancy interface with many possibilities. Isn't it just redundant/bloat to support both long and short ones? Dieter