[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH V5 1/2] configure: sort decoder/encoder/filter/... names in alphabet order

[avih]

> I guess you were looking at the right patch. I mean this one:
>   http://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2019-May/243380.html

I was referring to this patch indeed. Thanks.


> > > Agreed; of course we shouldn't just use awk because we can.
> > >
> > > Though I think not implementing things in shell is often
> > > lower risk, as we have no isolation in POSIX shell, we all
> > > share the same variables etc. and the configure script is
> > > quite big. Then shell is not suited for many tasks because
> > > of the way it works
> > > ...
> >
> > This actually sounds to me like you're saying we shouldn't use awk because
> > we can, but rather use it where possible because it'd be better than shell.
> >
> > In other words: we should write new configure code in awk.
> > 
> > Did I misinterpret the statement or its implications?
> 
> You got me totally wrong :(


I'm only human, it happens. But you didn't explain what you actually meant.

Specifically:

- What makes this patch a good candidate to use awk rather than shell like
  the rest of configure?

- What should be the general criteria to choose a scripting language for
  future patches?
 

    On Saturday, May 4, 2019 10:43 PM, Alexander Strasser <eclipse7 at gmx.net> wrote:
 

 Hi!

On 2019-05-04 06:28 +0000, avih wrote:
> > On 2019-05-02 08:55 +0000, avih wrote:
> > > > It seems awk is unconditionally required already. However I wanted to
> > > > say that it's a very nice dep to have
> > >
> > > While it's possibly nicer than other deps to have, it's still better to use
> > > it IMHO only when it adds some value, like simpler code, better performance,
> > > compliance with some things, etc.
> >
> > Agreed; of course we shouldn't just use awk because we can.
> >
> > Though I think not implementing things in shell is often
> > lower risk, as we have no isolation in POSIX shell, we all
> > share the same variables etc. and the configure script is
> > quite big. Then shell is not suited for many tasks because
> > of the way it works
> > ...
>
> This actually sounds to me like you're saying we shouldn't use awk because
> we can, but rather use it where possible because it'd be better than shell.
>
> In other words: we should write new configure code in awk.
>
> Did I misinterpret the statement or its implications?

You got me totally wrong :(

[...]
> >
> > Did you look at the version I attached in this thread? Or the one I
> > posted in the new patch set?
> >
> > I changed it to use an algorithm more similar to the latest shell
> > version discussed here.
>
> I think so, yes. As I said, it's similar to the shell version. I don't
> think it's worse in any way, but I also didn't see an added value.
>
> Please post a link to the actual patch if you think I'm not looking
> at the patch version you refer to.

I guess you were looking at the right patch. I mean this one:

  http://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2019-May/243380.html


  Alexander
_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel at ffmpeg.org
https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
ffmpeg-devel-request at ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".