-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 10/30/2011 06:28 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 12:10:18 +0000 (UTC) Vinay Sajip firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
We already have Unix shell scripts and BAT files in the source tree. Is it really complicated to maintain these additional shell scripts? Is there a lot of code in them?
No, they're pretty small: wc -l gives
76 posix/activate (Bash script, contains deactivate() function) 31 nt/activate.bat 17 nt/deactivate.bat
The question is whether we should stop at that, or whether there should be support for tcsh, fish etc. such as virtualenv provides.
I don't think we need additional support for more or less obscure shells. Also, if posix/activate is sufficiently well written (don't ask me how :-)), it should presumably be compatible with all Unix shells?
I have no problem including the basic posix/nt activate scripts if no one else is concerned about the added maintenance burden there.
I'm not sure that my cross-shell-scripting fu is sufficient to write posix/activate in a cross-shell-compatible way; I use bash and am not very familiar with other shells. If it runs under /bin/sh is that sufficient to make it compatible with "all Unix shells" (for some definition of "all")? If so, I can work on this.