Re: [Sbcl-devel] Error in tools-for-build/whitespacely-canonical-filenames

[Nikodemus S. <nik...@ra...>]

On 12 June 2012 12:46, Aleksej Saushev <as...@in...> wrote:

>> I think having a build-dependency on bash would not be terribly
>> onerous -- so I'd be fine with it.
>>
>> ...but I realize I'm not among those negatively affected, so...
>
> No, bash is very heavy dependency.

Heaviness is relative. It's available everywhere we support building,
and I would guess that 98% of SBCL build hosts already have it
installed.

In what sort of situations do you think bash as a /build time/
dependency is too onerous for SBCL? I'm willing to believe such a
situation can exist, but I really can't imagine one off the top of my
head.

"I don't want to install bash." doesn't qualify.

"I need to build SBCL on box X because of Y, and I /cannot/ install
bash there for reason Z." does. I'm just having trouble coming up with
a reason why someone needs to be able to build SBCL on a box where
they cannot have bash.

Cheers,

 -- Nikodemus