Re: [Bashdb-devel] Upcoming changes for potential Debian release

[R. B. <ro...@pa...>]

Mikael Andersson asks:
 > I'm curious about the $ac_prefix variable that is beeing used. I can't find 
 > where it's defined or what it's supposed to mean.

I looked again too. Generally things that start $ac_ are autoconf
things. $ac_default_prefix was the default prefix used and probably
the problem was that if you set this to something else that wasn't respected.
I think the right variable then is $prefix (without the ac_).

and opines: 
 > <warning licensing comments and opinions ahead, DON'T PANIC!>

No panic, just the contrary. I appreciate you taking the time give a
thoughtful reply. I need to study what you've written and the issue
itself in more detail. I am also seeking the advise and wisdom of
those I respect in such matters.

 > I think bash+dbg is good with the current scope of the project, but rebash if 
 > we intend on reviving bash development a bit when we're at it :).

Bash development has always been rather slow because basically it's
been a closed system and as far as I can tell there's only one person
who dictates what goes in. Contrast this with say Perl developement
where you have maybe 10 or so "core" developers and 100s of module
developers. (And Perl is not atypical, the GNU/Linux kernel, gcc,
apache, or php are about the same.)

I started this project in the hope that others would get interested in
aspects that others feel need improving and could
contribute. Initially the thing that irked me the most was the lack of
debugging support which has been in Perl over a decade, and a lack of
timestamped history which I've been using a decade or more in tcsh.

In this respect, I would prefer "rebash".