Re: [CVS] RPM: rpm-5_4: rpm/scripts/ vpkg-provides2.sh
In regard to: Re: [CVS] RPM: rpm-5_4: rpm/scripts/ vpkg-provides2.sh,...: Certainly lots of the scripts could use an overhaul. Most shells SHOULD be POSIX compliant: but I will defer to Tim's opinion on portability, there may still be some ancient shells in use somewhere. I no longer have access to many of the UNIX variants we used to use, but even Solaris 10 had a /bin/sh that was more traditional Bourne than POSIX. And for Pinto's benefit, specifically related to the vpkg-provides script: that script is really targeted at *non*-Linux, so portability to older variants of /bin/sh is important. No one needs vpkg-provides on an RPM-based system, but it might save the day on an AIX or Solaris system where you're trying to bootstrap RPM. Keep in mind that even older versions of the UNIX variants often had a POSIX shell stashed somewhere (like /usr/xpg4/bin/sh on Solaris 8 or 9), but it wasn't the default shell and a lot of newer admins wouldn't know of its existence. Tim -- Tim Mooney tim.moo...@ndsu.edu Enterprise Computing Infrastructure 701-231-1076 (Voice) Room 242-J6, Quentin Burdick Building 701-231-8541 (Fax) North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND 58105-5164 __ RPM Package Managerhttp://rpm5.org Developer Communication Listrpm-devel@rpm5.org
Re: [CVS] RPM: rpm-5_4: rpm/scripts/ vpkg-provides2.sh
On Apr 2, 2015, at 5:29 PM, devzero2000 wrote: Il 02/Apr/2015 18:43 Jeffrey Johnson n3...@me.com ha scritto: On Apr 2, 2015, at 12:11 PM, devzero2000 wrote: Il 02/Apr/2015 17:39 Jeffrey Johnson n3...@me.com ha scritto: Um ... was there actually a problem being solved here? Some of these scripts (like rpm2cpio.sh) are vitally important and have been posted publicly like here http://stackoverflow.com/questions/18787375/how-do-i-extract-the-contents-of-an-rpm/25986787#25986787 and integrated into other projects. The syntax change is highly intrusive to using diff to see what has changed. *shrug* Many of these scripts haven't been used in years. Ciao jbj The aim is to modernize a little these shells. The comment should be clear. The change is trivial, but a further check is certainly necessary ( some incompatibility is possible ) . Please describe modernize a bit. Here a possible interpretation http://mywiki.wooledge.org/BashFAQ/082 OK, got it, though I doubt many of the rpm scripts had deep escaping as in the examples. Meanwhile, a consistent usage everywhere is preferred (except perhaps for rpm2cpio.sh, where consistency with what is released in the wild is perhaps more important: using od(1) and set to swab ints (and pad signature headers) is arcane no matter what shell syntax is used). Certainly lots of the scripts could use an overhaul. Most shells SHOULD be POSIX compliant: but I will defer to Tim's opinion on portability, there may still be some ancient shells in use somewhere. I certainly know several useful (but thankless) changes needed with the scriptie in rpm: 1) standardize/regularize on foodeps -P|-R instead of ancient/hoary foo-prov/foo-req 2) resurrect v_pkg to fully automate and simplify the provides/verify of a non-rpm vendor OS 3) write shell/perl to verify the MD5 sum of header+payload without rpm installed (like rpm2cpio.sh) Ok. Todo. It was just a way to start again , maybe not so useful . Free to Revert. No.problem. I'll leave the decision to you. Yes its easy enough to revert if necessary. 73 de Jeff Best regards hth 73 de Jeff
Re: [CVS] RPM: rpm-5_4: rpm/scripts/ vpkg-provides2.sh
Il 02/Apr/2015 18:43 Jeffrey Johnson n3...@me.com ha scritto: On Apr 2, 2015, at 12:11 PM, devzero2000 wrote: Il 02/Apr/2015 17:39 Jeffrey Johnson n3...@me.com ha scritto: Um ... was there actually a problem being solved here? Some of these scripts (like rpm2cpio.sh) are vitally important and have been posted publicly like here http://stackoverflow.com/questions/18787375/how-do-i-extract-the-contents-of-an-rpm/25986787#25986787 and integrated into other projects. The syntax change is highly intrusive to using diff to see what has changed. *shrug* Many of these scripts haven't been used in years. Ciao jbj The aim is to modernize a little these shells. The comment should be clear. The change is trivial, but a further check is certainly necessary ( some incompatibility is possible ) . Please describe modernize a bit. Here a possible interpretation http://mywiki.wooledge.org/BashFAQ/082 I certainly know several useful (but thankless) changes needed with the scriptie in rpm: 1) standardize/regularize on foodeps -P|-R instead of ancient/hoary foo-prov/foo-req 2) resurrect v_pkg to fully automate and simplify the provides/verify of a non-rpm vendor OS 3) write shell/perl to verify the MD5 sum of header+payload without rpm installed (like rpm2cpio.sh) Ok. Todo. It was just a way to start again , maybe not so useful . Free to Revert. No.problem. Best regards hth 73 de Jeff
Re: [CVS] RPM: rpm-5_4: rpm/scripts/ vpkg-provides2.sh
Um ... was there actually a problem being solved here?
Some of these scripts (like rpm2cpio.sh) are vitally
important and have been posted publicly like here
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/18787375/how-do-i-extract-the-contents-of-an-rpm/25986787#25986787
and integrated into other projects. The syntax change is
highly intrusive to using diff to see what has changed.
*shrug* Many of these scripts haven't been used in years.
But please state your intent before aesthetically driven changes like this.
73 de Jeff
On Apr 2, 2015, at 8:57 AM, Pinto Elia wrote:
RPM Package Manager, CVS Repository
http://rpm5.org/cvs/
Server: rpm5.org Name: Pinto Elia
Root: /v/rpm/cvs Email: devzero2...@rpm5.org
Module: rpm Date: 02-Apr-2015 14:57:58
Branch: rpm-5_4 Handle: 2015040212575800
Modified files: (Branch: rpm-5_4)
rpm/scripts vpkg-provides2.sh
Log:
vpkg-provides2.sh: use the $( ... \) construct for command substitution
Prefer the $( ... ) construct for command
substitution instead of using the back-quotes, or grave accents (`..`).
The backquoted form is the historical method for command substitution,
and is supported by POSIX. However, all but the simplest uses become
complicated quickly. In particular, embedded command substitutions
and/or the use of double quotes require careful escaping with the backslash
character. Because of this the POSIX shell adopted the $(…) feature from
the Korn shell.
The patch was generated by the simple script
for _f in $(find . -type f -exec file {} \; | grep -i shell | awk -F: '{
print $1 }')
do
perl -i -pe 'BEGIN{undef $/;} s@`(.*)`@\$($1)@smg' ${_f}
done
Summary:
RevisionChanges Path
1.3.22.1+8 -8 rpm/scripts/vpkg-provides2.sh
patch -p0 '@@ .'
Index: rpm/scripts/vpkg-provides2.sh
$ cvs diff -u -r1.3 -r1.3.22.1 vpkg-provides2.sh
--- rpm/scripts/vpkg-provides2.sh15 Mar 2001 13:58:16 - 1.3
+++ rpm/scripts/vpkg-provides2.sh2 Apr 2015 12:57:58 - 1.3.22.1
@@ -11,9 +11,9 @@
IGNORE_DIRS='@'
-date=`date`
-hostname=`uname -n`
-osname=`uname -s`
+date=$(date)
+hostname=$(uname -n)
+osname=$(uname -s)
# programs we run
@@ -29,16 +29,16 @@
requires_tmp=/tmp/requires.$$
-for pkg in `$u_pkg list_all_packages`
+for pkg in $($u_pkg list_all_packages)
do
# find OS pkg information
spec_filename=$spec_filedir/$pkg
-veryify_cmd=`$u_pkg print_cmd package_version $pkg | sed -e s/\\$1/$pkg/ `
+veryify_cmd=$($u_pkg print_cmd package_version $pkg | sed -e s/\\$1/$pkg/
)
-pkg_version=`$u_pkg package_version $pkg `
+pkg_version=$($u_pkg package_version $pkg )
# find all the dependencies
@@ -74,7 +74,7 @@
%description
This is a virtual RPM package. It contains no actual files. It uses the
-\`Provides' token from RPM 3.x and later to list many of the shared
libraries
+\$(Provides' token from RPM 3.x and later to list many of the shared
libraries
and interpreters that are part of the base operating system and associated
subsets for $osname.
@@ -103,7 +103,7 @@
export PATH
expected_version='$pkg_version'
-current_version=\`$veryify_cmd\`
+current_version=\)$veryify_cmd\`
if [ \$expected_version -ne \$current_version ]; then
echo RPM virtual package does not match OS pkg: $pkg 2
@@ .
__
RPM Package Managerhttp://rpm5.org
CVS Sources Repositoryrpm-...@rpm5.org
__
RPM Package Managerhttp://rpm5.org
Developer Communication Listrpm-devel@rpm5.org
Re: [CVS] RPM: rpm-5_4: rpm/scripts/ vpkg-provides2.sh
On Apr 2, 2015, at 12:11 PM, devzero2000 wrote: Il 02/Apr/2015 17:39 Jeffrey Johnson n3...@me.com ha scritto: Um ... was there actually a problem being solved here? Some of these scripts (like rpm2cpio.sh) are vitally important and have been posted publicly like here http://stackoverflow.com/questions/18787375/how-do-i-extract-the-contents-of-an-rpm/25986787#25986787 and integrated into other projects. The syntax change is highly intrusive to using diff to see what has changed. *shrug* Many of these scripts haven't been used in years. Ciao jbj The aim is to modernize a little these shells. The comment should be clear. The change is trivial, but a further check is certainly necessary ( some incompatibility is possible ) . Please describe modernize a bit. I certainly know several useful (but thankless) changes needed with the scriptie in rpm: 1) standardize/regularize on foodeps -P|-R instead of ancient/hoary foo-prov/foo-req 2) resurrect v_pkg to fully automate and simplify the provides/verify of a non-rpm vendor OS 3) write shell/perl to verify the MD5 sum of header+payload without rpm installed (like rpm2cpio.sh) hth 73 de Jeff
Re: [CVS] RPM: rpm-5_4: rpm/scripts/ vpkg-provides2.sh
In regard to: Re: [CVS] RPM: rpm-5_4: rpm/scripts/ vpkg-provides2.sh,...: The aim is to modernize a little these shells. The comment should be clear. Why? Was there something broken that you've fixed? Because the change you've made actually makes them less portable. Tim -- Tim Mooney tim.moo...@ndsu.edu Enterprise Computing Infrastructure 701-231-1076 (Voice) Room 242-J6, Quentin Burdick Building 701-231-8541 (Fax) North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND 58105-5164 __ RPM Package Managerhttp://rpm5.org Developer Communication Listrpm-devel@rpm5.org
