From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-GM-THRID: 6750962531146137600 X-Received: by 2002:a5d:5704:: with SMTP id a4mr3710723wrv.281.1571918478276; Thu, 24 Oct 2019 05:01:18 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: isar-users@googlegroups.com Received: by 2002:a1c:f213:: with SMTP id s19ls36033wmc.0.experimental-gmail; Thu, 24 Oct 2019 05:01:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxuv3t6nZ+HO10r3YvyEjOPBUvkOtV3IERrnlbl4ch/nQJeHapM9PQCmGTFxOULkro/pAus X-Received: by 2002:a1c:7913:: with SMTP id l19mr4859597wme.26.1571918477653; Thu, 24 Oct 2019 05:01:17 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1571918477; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=nHMszA+HsuZ0ped1yAz83+ImWg3UaeMwU/VOtLcweMh1AyqXm5pDwveGvT1BhGJsZg wf2qosd0zCpdPywFIVnOLOlyHC11D/vxG0+wnil4EVAcS4aeNE/LMdimeslgZ0osbdN4 fMAU+IKBlVMev0YUHTfjLF3e7bzxMQpQA7voMrEGxiXDNwTDnm7fOQTgIg7ZJTv0Mm9d d5U8eYSuzclZzn53c1E8tUmyKQDOL6FBCJKucvLS16XkK1W1FwfIx5y20QUALU33dCb3 Zu4zSK+omL0F4ezXCRJnscVZLe3ytcKEQBh5qHUd9k2IZ13JWSPHA204J6RcgLZe+WXA Q6SQ== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=user-agent:in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references :mail-followup-to:message-id:subject:to:from:date; bh=OXXFaBN+AmgZ6p+R9qo117FZrHeWKo2EnGyBNEXayP8=; b=hHkkg0NLBxjDBwqucDnf1TQ0DaCVKnDS+QLv9m/cQV1Y4aezlkR0eLkkVK81pJqmvp Gx5EvKcFk6pHoifcjpp73H5K5IZWRrHCpEVknTB/oVd4afhpFukrDRJdiPbkl0JyB0XV j+HQyJcewly2WV6ws/Lgd1wmnN0oAMyFK694A9KDw56GMbPheFBAIWKdyAWsUCxZOxCB B936KVvo/tymHvt5je8YX5OR5aBdgiV7L0TZd0ZU3/QuacyoWoqkYVMsACcXFB6SHVLg SwYH8/uAuroJRW6yx/1+JHhFtVjWXa/GlFFU/YZhU/aQg5UkLwrxpwNHHsvr2WlcFHK/ 3c2A== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; gmr-mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 85.214.156.166 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of ibr@radix50.net) smtp.mailfrom=ibr@radix50.net Return-Path: Received: from shymkent.ilbers.de (shymkent.ilbers.de. [85.214.156.166]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id c12si1167465wrn.2.2019.10.24.05.01.17 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Thu, 24 Oct 2019 05:01:17 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 85.214.156.166 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of ibr@radix50.net) client-ip=85.214.156.166; Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 85.214.156.166 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of ibr@radix50.net) smtp.mailfrom=ibr@radix50.net Received: from yssyq.m.ilbers.de (host-80-81-17-52.static.customer.m-online.net [80.81.17.52]) (authenticated bits=0) by shymkent.ilbers.de (8.15.2/8.15.2/Debian-8) with ESMTPSA id x9OC1FhJ015841 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Thu, 24 Oct 2019 14:01:16 +0200 Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2019 14:01:15 +0200 From: Baurzhan Ismagulov To: isar-users@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 2/9] base-apt: use the "basename" command instead of pattern substitution Message-ID: <20191024120115.u3gjqqbpibbc2pnx@yssyq.m.ilbers.de> Mail-Followup-To: isar-users@googlegroups.com References: <20191023114227.31308-1-henning.schild@siemens.com> <20191023114227.31308-3-henning.schild@siemens.com> <20191023203604.4fnnttjymfypiktg@yssyq.m.ilbers.de> <20191024111622.3d478a6b@md1za8fc.ad001.siemens.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20191024111622.3d478a6b@md1za8fc.ad001.siemens.net> User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on shymkent.ilbers.de X-TUID: mW6UHUo3EOW8 On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 11:16:22AM +0200, Henning Schild wrote: > > I'm not in favor of this one. The suggested replacement spawns a > > subshell and executes a binary, which is much more expensive than > > shell's builtin operation, and that is executed in a loop. The > > current code is correct. The variable name explains what it does. > > In a loop that executes a lot of commands anyways, but i will drop it > from v3. Ok, thanks. On a busy CI system one hits a limit easier than one expects -- we did have process- and memory-related limit problems when we evaluated a powerful virtual server. With kind regards, Baurzhan.