On Wed, Jul 07, 2021 at 04:10:43PM +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
Dear Tom,
In message 20210707135839.GW9516@bill-the-cat you wrote:
As I've said a few times in this thread, this not being an sh-style interpreter is a strike against it. And if we're going to insist on a bug-for-bug upgrade to our hush (so that all of the hugely complex existing scripts keep working) we might as well not upgrade. Frankly I suspect that down the line IF a new cli interpreter comes in to U-Boot we will have to keep the old one around as a "use this instead" option for another long number of years, so that if there are any systems with non-trivial scripts but upgrade U-Boot and don't / won't / can't re-validate their entire sequence, they can just use the old cli.
Do you actually have an example where code working on our ancient port of hush would fail on the current upstream version?
Have you validated one of those exceedingly complex boot scripts with a modern hush (and some fakery for u-boot commands) ? No. I'm just saying I expect there to be enough risk-adverse groups that just dropping our old hush entirely might not be possible right away. Of course, if all of the current in-tree complex cases Just Work, that might be a good argument against needing to keep such levels of backwards compatibility.