Prev: Cheap wholesale 2010 World Cup jerseys by paypal and free shipping
Next: Question about CDPATH in bash...
From: John Kelly on 13 Jun 2010 19:48
On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 23:33:20 +0000 (UTC), gazelle(a)shell.xmission.com
(Kenny McCormack) wrote:

>In article <2018127.hmKxfEcJ0L(a)xkzjympik>, pk <pk(a)pk.invalid> wrote:
>>Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>
>>>> If you see other bugs though, maybe I can fix them.
>>>
>>> I don't think I care much for finding out what it does (it is completely
>>> undocumented), or fix bugs in an approach that I think is flawed from the
>>> outset. Sorry.
>>
>>Thanks for letting everyone know.
>
>Yeah, I was definitely on the edge of my chair waiting for the
>PointedEars verdict.

Heh. Whats up Kenny.

The hack artisan is no more than 120 lines of bash. I provide a README
file that explains its purpose. Once you understand that, it's not hard
to read the bash code. It's short and sweet.

It is a bash script, so that's on topic IMO. I don't think discussion
here is limited to POSIX shell.

The hack artisan is not for everyone, since not everyone wants to hack
project source code. But for those who do, enjoy.



--
Web mail, POP3, and SMTP
http://www.beewyz.com/freeaccounts.php

From: Ben Finney on 13 Jun 2010 20:48
John Kelly <jak(a)isp2dial.com> writes:

> Organizing, maintaining, and merging the patches can get tedious, and
> I wanted a tool to make it less of a chore. So I wrote a bash script
> for that purpose. I call it ha, the hack artisan.

In what ways is your solution better than Quilt
<URL:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quilt_%28software%29>?

> It does not handle file names with embedded blanks, and it only handles
> tar.gz tarballs. You can make improvements yourself, so try not to
> complain. It's also bash specific, it's not intended to be portable to
> other shells.

I think Quilt suffers from none of these. Perhaps you could use it as
the patch manager part of your solution?

> If you see other bugs though, maybe I can fix them.

Hope that helps.

--
\ “When cryptography is outlawed, bayl bhgynjf jvyy unir |
`\ cevinpl.” —Anonymous |
_o__) |
Ben Finney
From: John Kelly on 13 Jun 2010 21:10
On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 10:48:57 +1000, Ben Finney
<ben+unix(a)benfinney.id.au> wrote:

>John Kelly <jak(a)isp2dial.com> writes:

>> Organizing, maintaining, and merging the patches can get tedious, and
>> I wanted a tool to make it less of a chore. So I wrote a bash script
>> for that purpose. I call it ha, the hack artisan.

>In what ways is your solution better than Quilt
><URL:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quilt_%28software%29>?

Apache license and smaller size.


>> It does not handle file names with embedded blanks, and it only handles
>> tar.gz tarballs. You can make improvements yourself, so try not to
>> complain. It's also bash specific, it's not intended to be portable to
>> other shells.
>
>I think Quilt suffers from none of these. Perhaps you could use it as
>the patch manager part of your solution?

Projects I hack on don't have any tarballs or patch file names with
embedded blanks. That's a problem I don't need to solve. Why would I
want to bloat my tool and infest it with GPL code.


--
Web mail, POP3, and SMTP
http://www.beewyz.com/freeaccounts.php

From: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn on 13 Jun 2010 21:58
John Kelly wrote:

> The hack artisan is no more than 120 lines of bash. I provide a README
> file that explains its purpose. Once you understand that, it's not hard
> to read the bash code. It's short and sweet.

To be precise, `ha' is not undocumented. It is underdocumented.

> It is a bash script, so that's on topic IMO. I don't think discussion
> here is limited to POSIX shell.

It isn't, but if your script would only run in a particular bash version ...


PointedEars
From: Chris F.A. Johnson on 13 Jun 2010 22:15
On 2010-06-14, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> John Kelly wrote:
>
>> The hack artisan is no more than 120 lines of bash. I provide a README
>> file that explains its purpose. Once you understand that, it's not hard
>> to read the bash code. It's short and sweet.
>
> To be precise, `ha' is not undocumented. It is underdocumented.
>
>> It is a bash script, so that's on topic IMO. I don't think discussion
>> here is limited to POSIX shell.
>
> It isn't, but if your script would only run in a particular bash version ...

Which "particular bash version" is that?

There are ways I think the script could be improved, but I didn't
notice anything that wouldn't run in any bash version from 2.05b
on. The current version is 4.1.

--
Chris F.A. Johnson, author <http://shell.cfajohnson.com/>
===================================================================
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)
Pro Bash Programming: Scripting the GNU/Linux Shell (2009, Apress)

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: Cheap wholesale 2010 World Cup jerseys by paypal and free shipping
Next: Question about CDPATH in bash...