Re: [PATCH 1/2] cargo.eclass: for EAPI 9, ban cargo_src_install

On 5/29/26 2:49 AM, Ionen Wolkens wrote:

> It's either way for consistency, now the eclass does it in two different
> ways. And this isn't POSIX sh, we intentionally use bashism everywhere
> because this is bash.


No we don't.

We *take advantage of* bash everywhere. There is nothing to take
advantage of, here. There are no internet points to be had for
dogmatically using a social misfeature with no semantic distinction, as
some kind of "loyalty test: do you reject POSIX?"

[[ or enhanced string manipulation or local or arrays or [or or or]...
are all things we have no *qualms* using. This is bash, "loyalty test:
do you avoid unportable bashisms" isn't a valid reason to write worse code.

Loyalty tests in both directions are "things we don't do".

And my objection to "==" is that it is longer / harder to read, serves
no purpose (valid or otherwise), and practically is known to break
people's brains. My objection is *consistent* with the fact that I
believe bash upstream should make it a verbose warning to use it that
warns you you should have used "=". Because it's a *bad* feature.

Objecting to a bad feature is certainly opinionated, but it isn't
against tree policy on style -- you may also note I religiously use
"spaces not tabs" in private shell code, but cheerfully obey actual tree
policy for ::gentoo, *because* it is policy. :)


-- 
Eli Schwartz

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

wnsEABYIACMWIQTnFNnmK0TPZHnXm3qEp9ErcA0vVwUCahmtqQUDAAAAAAAKCRCEp9ErcA0vV3V/
AQDSOyxHk5XMx/FnukDyAnOFt5dEGFE/7DQyOipyfDA1gAD9FfnsgozZGdn1b901QnyRD6JfF3t0
D+cYxz1bg4mhdgs=
=JrJ3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----