#24 Scripts have to be run one by one

Open
opened 4 months ago by jimmy · 3 comments
Jimmy commented 4 months ago

Would anyone agree that it would be a nice feature to be able to compile LBSD in one execution rather than running all of the scripts.

I'm going to try to write a C++ binary that can monitor and run all the scripts. I hope to have it catch errors and notify the user if any script exits funny or errors.

If you have another idea or want to use bash/another native lang just let me know I'll check it out.

Would anyone agree that it would be a nice feature to be able to compile LBSD in one execution rather than running all of the scripts. I'm going to try to write a C++ binary that can monitor and run all the scripts. I hope to have it catch errors and notify the user if any script exits funny or errors. If you have another idea or want to use bash/another native lang just let me know I'll check it out.
Jaidyn Lev. commented 4 months ago
Owner

Would anyone agree that it would be a nice feature to be able to compile LBSD in one execution rather than running all of the scripts.

Totally, a make file or basic script that runs them consecutively (using default paths) would be convenient.

I'm going to try to write a C++ binary that can monitor and run all the scripts. I hope to have it catch errors and notify the user if any script exits funny or errors.

That would be useful, but it would probably be better to stick to mostly-POSIX shell. IIRC, I set up a logging system (in each of the functions of libdeblob.sh) that prints successes and failures. If anything, that might need to be expanded and improved.

> Would anyone agree that it would be a nice feature to be able to compile LBSD in one execution rather than running all of the scripts. Totally, a make file or basic script that runs them consecutively (using default paths) would be convenient. > I'm going to try to write a C++ binary that can monitor and run all the scripts. I hope to have it catch errors and notify the user if any script exits funny or errors. That would be useful, but it would probably be better to stick to mostly-POSIX shell. IIRC, I set up a logging system (in each of the functions of libdeblob.sh) that prints successes and failures. If anything, that might need to be expanded and improved.
Jimmy commented 4 months ago
Poster

Personally I have a hard time debugging/running bash scripts considering that I would have to run them every time in Git Bash, which isn't even available to me natively, which is why I use things like C# and C++. If I had a POSIX system to work with, obviously I would use POSIX shell.

Personally I have a hard time debugging/running bash scripts considering that I would have to run them every time in Git Bash, which isn't even available to me natively, which is why I use things like C# and C++. If I had a POSIX system to work with, obviously I would use POSIX shell.
Jaidyn Lev. commented 3 months ago
Owner

@Jimmy: What system do you use? I thought you were on GNU/Linux, at least IIRC o And with this project there isn't really much of debugging the shell scripts, but debugging their effects-- writing a C# or C++ debugger that would be useful (and catch unintended effects) would be a pretty large and unnecessary undertaking.

@Jimmy: What system do you use? I thought you were on GNU/Linux, at least IIRC `o` And with this project there isn't really much of debugging the shell scripts, but debugging *their effects*-- writing a C# or C++ debugger that would be useful (and catch unintended effects) would be a pretty large and unnecessary undertaking.
Sign in to join this conversation.
No Label
No Milestone
No assignee
2 Participants
Loading...
Cancel
Save
There is no content yet.