[pacman-dev] Why not using the bash getopts buildin? Was: Removing deltas from repos

[Allan McRae]

Dieter Plaetinck wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 13:40:37 -0500
> Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>   
>> On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 12:12 PM, Xavier <shiningxc at gmail.com> wrote:
>>     
>>> On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 6:39 PM, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin at 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?
>   

No....  there are only so many letters of the alphabet and we still have 
many long options without letters assigned to them that have no obvious 
shortening.

Allan