[edk2-devel] [PATCH 1/1] edksetup.sh: rework python executable scanning
Leif Lindholm
leif.lindholm at linaro.org
Wed Jul 17 14:04:51 UTC 2019
On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 02:10:43PM -0600, Rebecca Cran wrote:
> On 2019-07-16 13:07, Leif Lindholm wrote:
> > + EXECUTABLE=`basename $file`
> > + VERSION=`echo $EXECUTABLE | sed 's/[^0-9.]//g'`
> > +
> > + MAJOR=`echo $VERSION | sed 's/\([0-9]*\)\.*.*/\1/'`
> > + MINOR=`echo $VERSION | sed 's/[0-9]*\.*\([0-9]*\).*/\1/'`
> > + PATCH=`echo $VERSION | sed 's/[0-9]*\.*[0-9]*\.*\([0-9]*\)/\1/'`
>
> Here and in other places, we should probably use $(...) instead of `...` .
>
> From http://mywiki.wooledge.org/BashFAQ/082 :
>
> " `...` is the legacy syntax required by only the very oldest of
> non-POSIX-compatible bourne-shells. There are several reasons to always
> prefer the $(...) syntax..."
>
> And https://wiki.bash-hackers.org/scripting/obsolete
I also liked http://mywiki.wooledge.org/BashFAQ/082, linked from that.
> "Both the |`COMMANDS`| and |$(COMMANDS)| syntaxes are specified by
> POSIX, but the latter is _greatly_ preferred, though the former is
> unfortunately still very prevalent in scripts."
You're absolutely right.
I have in the past written scripts both for ancient UNIXen and early
busybox, so have a habit to go lowest common denominator. But this is
a _bash_ script, so there's no good reason.
If we keep the function, I'll rewrite it as suggested - thanks!
/
Leif
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#43885): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/43885
Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/32495132/1813853
Group Owner: devel+owner at edk2.groups.io
Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [edk2-devel-archive at redhat.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
More information about the edk2-devel-archive
mailing list