Re: [shell functions]

[Bruce Korb]

Christopher Currie wrote:

> I don't have a problem with libtool using shell
> functions; all POSIX compliant shells are supposed to support them. The
> danger here is that if we make libtool dependent on some specific shell
> feature, do we not make any software that uses libtool dependent on that
> feature?

That's not about to happen.  We're talking about moving the minimum
age of the bootstrapping shell from 15+ years old to 10 or so.  ;-)
There would be no dependency on Bash.  Maintainers of ancient
hobbyiest systems would have to port some old version of bash
before they could run configure and libtool.

> The beauty of libtool is that the developer of a package doesn't need to
> concern herself with any platform specific issue;

And we are absolutely not talking about changing libtool's functionality.

> The other concern is that some systems may have bash installed, but not
> as /bin/sh. If libtool depends on bash, it will need to locate it, not
> just assume that its in /bin or /usr/bin

Of course.  That's why the configure script exists.