From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2012 11:35:48 -0400 From: Kurt H Maier To: lucio@proxima.alt.za, Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> Message-ID: <20120828153548.GC11005@intma.in> References: <20120828150521.GA10731@intma.in> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [9fans] rc vs sh Topicbox-Message-UUID: b12e1468-ead7-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 05:36:58PM +0200, Lucio De Re wrote: > > Sure, feel free to make something that isn't shitty, there's plenty > out there that can be improved. The machinery to install Go (from > sources) is hardly the most important amongst them. > The Go team has already explicitly stated they are note interested in a better build system. I don't know if it's plain NIH or a secret bash fetish, but they're not buying. Improving software is not a zero-sum game; Go development is not a closed system. The build system can be improved without impeding other progress. > Solution: replace > the #!/bin/sh with #!/usr/bin/env -c /bin/bash. Why not? Because there are plenty of systems out there without env or bash. > I may > misremember, but before the Go tool was released, the Plan 9 release > managed to get itself compiled using ape/sh. As far as I can tell, > the dependence isn't in Bash features as much as in the consistency > across Bash versions. > ...which is another unproved assumption.