GNU-compatible, BSD-licensed bc

[Gavin Howard]

On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 8:29 AM Warner Losh <imp at bsdimp.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 5:33 AM Stefan Esser <se at freebsd.org> wrote:
>
> > Am 08.01.19 um 22:35 schrieb Conrad Meyer:
> > > Hi Stefan,
> > >
> > > Apologies, I misunderstood the idea.
> > >
> > > However, it seems like any port that depends on gnubc today could
> > continue
> > > to depend on gnubc on older branches until a suitable replacement
> > > propagates into stable.  (And that would be less work :-).)
> >
> > Yes, but the work has already been done ;-)
> >
> > I've been exchanging private mails with Gavin and he has worked
> > on his "bc", e.g. to make the included tests run on FreeBSD out
> > of the box (they used to require GNU bc).
> >
> > A few small issues have been fixed and he is looking into another
> > one (^D handling). Working on the port (and tests performed with
> > its preliminary version) has already improved the quality of the
> > code that is about to be imported into base ...

Yes, it has, and the fix for ^D handling is now in master.

> > If users actually try running with Gavin's bc (as a port) before
> > it makes it into a release, there is a good chance that any
> > unexpected incompatibilitiy (e.g., if it is compatible with GNU
> > bc, but behaves differently from our current bc in base) is found
> > in time.

I already know that there are differences, but it seems to be more
from bugs in your current bc. For example, when running the
`tests/bc/scripts/parse.bc` script, which generates a test of *just*
numbers (and assignments to ibase), the current bc generates a colon
(`:`) for some reason. I have no idea why, and it seems to me that it
is probably a bug, since a colon is not a valid digit. I could be
wrong, though; I haven't dug into it.

> > So, I intend to proceed with an import as a port, independently
> > of the import into base, which I appreciate, too.
> >
>
> We've had several BSDL'd things that started life as a port. I think this
> is a great strategy: make it available TODAY as a port (since the barrier
> to entry is small), if it pans out, integrate into base.

Sounds good to me too. I was going to wait until I had full manuals
written before releasing, but if it will just be a port at first, I
will release quickly (by the end of the week, hopefully) and work on
manuals later. Then I can release again right before the next code
freeze, or whatever would be desired.

Gavin Howard