A bad thing about ALFS in c
schmerge at speakeasy.net
Mon Nov 5 16:14:27 PST 2001
Why not just use system(3) ?
On Sun, 4 Nov 2001, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> Hi ALFSers,
> I've been working hardly on my project that somewhat is similar to ALFS,
> it's based on shell scripts with little c code in order to handle xml.
> Well, to the point, when I was trying to get my bash code into c I found
> a really bad thing about interacting with bash. Basically you can say to
> bash to execute commands in very different ways, some nicer than others,
> but the point is that you can't never know the status of some command,
> you can know the status of the whole shell but not where it failed or
> anything. If you really want to interact with bash you need to create
> something called a coshell, which is basically implement gross hacks in
> the shell commands in order to report the status somewhere, so imho it's
> not good.
> I'm not sure if you understood this, but the point is that the whole
> ALFS can get stuck if you don't want to touch bash shell scripting, you
> probably will need to.
> I'm pretty sure that's why nALFS code can't simply execute a complete
> setup, just separeted steps. If it can do it withouth using bash
> scripting then please tell me how, but I think it can't be done.
> To take a look on how I've been doing things will bash and little c,
> please go to http://sourcer.sourceforge.net, any feedback will be
> appreciated as usual, or might be more :)
> Felipe Contereas
> Unsubscribe: send email to listar at linuxfromscratch.org
> and put 'unsubscribe alfs-discuss' in the subject header of the message
Unsubscribe: send email to listar at linuxfromscratch.org
and put 'unsubscribe alfs-discuss' in the subject header of the message
More information about the alfs-discuss