Re: 1,000 year backward compatability of tools

[Bruce Korb]

Charles Wilson wrote:

> I think the "winning" argument was as follows:
>    for archaic systems whose shell does not support shfuncs, 'somebody'
> should create a snapshot of bash with a frozen autotool version....

That's the argument that has been put forth over and over for years.
I couldn't remember if it was finally accepted or not.  It was deemed
insufficient for so many years....

> Recall that just because NEW autotools will/may use shell functions,
> that doesn't retroactively break all existing packages that are already
> "out there".  So, the poor Ultrix user will only need "bootstrap bash"

> However, AFAIK, nobody has actually created that "bootstrap bash"
> package, or if they have, it has not been widely publicized.

That's because the few hobbiests maintaining the museum pieces
manage to cope and all the remaining antiquarians are either
theoretical or silent.  The people speaking up seem to be those
who worry about the theoreticals instead of people with real problems....
"It's time to move on."