[pacman-dev] bsd port?

[Dan McGee]

On 10/23/07, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/23/07, Mateusz Jedrasik <m.jedrasik at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I've tried it some time ago, didn't get too far as I couldn't sort of be arsed
> > too much ;-) But now that I see someone else's tried removing the linuxisms
> > off of pacman's files, I might give it a go, time permits.
>
> See, here's the thing. I know this is true of myself, and I don't
> speak for Dan. But most of "us" linux users don't really know what IS
> and IS NOT a "linuxism".
>
> So comments like Xavier showed us... "cut the bashism crap" and the
> like couldn't be more useless.
>
> The best thing that can be done is actually pointing out SPECIFIC
> "linuxisms" so we:
> a) Know what is and is not a linuxism
> b) Don't repeat it again
> c) Can fix the code.

>From Xavier too so we have context:
"got pacman to compile on libfetch and libdownload that are in FreeBSD 6.2
1. cut out with that damn bashism and linux non-posix crap
2. check the makefiles, they're full of bugs
but all this du -cb and cp -a crap...
and then the "source" syntax instead of "."
and there's also chown root.root, which should be root:root, or even better 0:0"

I am 100% with Aaron here. Why the hell should we cater to BSD when we
have not had a single use case out of their corner? I'm doing it more
out of curiosity, and because I believe it helps weed out bugs we
don't know of being only mono-platform.

I don't want to get mad, but if this asshat has a problem wit h the
code then submit a fucking patch. And how hard is a fucking "alias
source='.'"?

And now in a nicer tone of voice, I don't plan on killing anything
bash- its the shell of choice by anything pacman and makepkg do, so
that is staying. But some of the other concerns could be fixed.

-Dan