John H. Robinson, IV writes (Re: dash bug which is affecting release goal):
Pierre Habouzit wrote:
echo() { /bin/echo $@ }
echo() { /bin/echo ${1+$@}; }
I believe you mean.
Why ?!
Ian.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact
On Sun, 2008-02-24 at 14:00 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
John H. Robinson, IV writes (Re: dash bug which is affecting release goal):
Pierre Habouzit wrote:
echo() { /bin/echo $@ }
echo() { /bin/echo ${1+$@}; }
I believe you mean.
Why ?!
Because stand-alone $@ is undefined when
On Sun, 2008-02-24 at 08:30 -0600, William Pitcock wrote:
On Sun, 2008-02-24 at 14:00 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
John H. Robinson, IV writes (Re: dash bug which is affecting release
goal):
Pierre Habouzit wrote:
echo() { /bin/echo $@ }
echo() { /bin/echo ${1+$@}; }
I
On 2/24/08, William Pitcock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 2008-02-24 at 14:00 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
John H. Robinson, IV writes (Re: dash bug which is affecting release
goal):
Pierre Habouzit wrote:
echo() { /bin/echo $@ }
echo() { /bin/echo ${1+$@}; }
I
* William Pitcock:
On Sun, 2008-02-24 at 14:00 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
John H. Robinson, IV writes (Re: dash bug which is affecting release goal):
Pierre Habouzit wrote:
echo() { /bin/echo $@ }
echo() { /bin/echo ${1+$@}; }
I believe you mean.
Why ?!
Because stand-alone
Pierre Habouzit wrote:
echo() { /bin/echo $@ }
echo() { /bin/echo ${1+$@}; }
I believe you mean.
--
John H. Robinson, IV [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http
WARNING: I cannot be held responsible for the above,
On 11/02/2008, Mike Bird wrote:
Debian should ensure that millions of Debian users around the world
who have written and tested millions of tiny shell scripts with no
thought to the possibility that /bin/sh may one day become not-bash
will not suffer millions of hours of down time (or worse -
On ma, 2008-02-11 at 09:41 -0800, Mike Bird wrote:
On Mon February 11 2008 09:08:24 Russ Allbery wrote:
So switch your /bin/sh back to bash when the Release Notes tell you about
the change and move on with your life. That's why it's configurable.
Why force millions of Debian users to do
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Release Notes do not magically fix millions of tiny shell scripts.
Thomas
Setting /bin/sh back to bash does
Cheers,
Raphael
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mike Bird [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Release notes do not offset the millions of person-hours needed to
review and maybe-rewrite and retest the millions of tiny shell scripts
that have been written and tested by millions of Debian users with no
thought to the possible consequences of
On Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 03:39:29PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Andreas Bombe:
How many million person-hours does it really need to substitute
#!/bin/sh by #!/bin/bash once per script? That's even easily
scriptable, and I don't see the need for any amount of reviewing and
testing for
* Andreas Bombe:
How many million person-hours does it really need to substitute
#!/bin/sh by #!/bin/bash once per script? That's even easily
scriptable, and I don't see the need for any amount of reviewing and
testing for such simple a bug fix.
/bin/sh behaves differently than /bin/bash,
On Mon, 2008-02-11 at 11:20 +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
On 11/02/2008, Mike Bird wrote:
Debian should ensure that millions of Debian users around the world
who have written and tested millions of tiny shell scripts with no
thought to the possibility that /bin/sh may one day become
On Mon, 2008-02-11 at 01:54 -0600, William Pitcock wrote:
It's possible for programs to completely change between versions. There
really is no difference in reality between switching from program A to
program B and switching from program A 1.1 to 1.2. The risk of problems
is exactly the same.
Mike Bird wrote:
On Mon February 11 2008 02:20:26 Cyril Brulebois wrote:
On 11/02/2008, Mike Bird wrote:
On *production* Debian systems, saving 30 seconds in a boot which
may occur once a year for a kernel security update is not worth a
single broken script, nor a single failed backup, nor a
[No need to Cc me; I'm subscribed. Please respect my M-F-T.]
On Sun, Feb 10, 2008 at 08:39:45PM -0600, William Pitcock wrote:
On Sun, 2008-02-10 at 22:11 +, brian m. carlson wrote:
As far as I can tell, /usr/bin/test and /usr/bin/[ are completely
useless, because none of bash, dash, posh,
On Mon February 11 2008 04:19:25 Frans Pop wrote:
Hmmm. To be honest up till now I was assuming that the change of the
default would only affect _new_ installs and that existing systems being
upgraded from Etch to Lenny would be unaffected.
This is certainly good news. If I overlooked a clear
Am Montag, 11. Februar 2008 16:12:04 schrieb Mike Bird:
On Mon February 11 2008 06:53:43 Adam Borowski wrote:
On Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 01:33:54AM -0800, Mike Bird wrote:
On *production* Debian systems, saving 30 seconds in a boot
which may occur once a year for a kernel security update is
On Mon February 11 2008 06:53:43 Adam Borowski wrote:
On Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 01:33:54AM -0800, Mike Bird wrote:
On *production* Debian systems, saving 30 seconds in a boot
which may occur once a year for a kernel security update is
not worth a single broken script, nor a single failed
On Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 01:33:54AM -0800, Mike Bird wrote:
On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 21:40:14 Raphael Geissert wrote:
I've already changed my /bin/sh and I've found very very few
broken/missbehaving scripts.
And as a great pro my boot time is more than 50% faster now, not to mention
that the
Am Montag, 11. Februar 2008 13:19:25 schrieb Frans Pop:
Mike Bird wrote:
Debian should ensure that millions of Debian users around
the world who have written and tested millions of tiny shell
scripts with no thought to the possibility that /bin/sh may
one day become not-bash will not
On Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 02:48:33AM -0800, Mike Bird wrote:
Release notes do not offset the millions of person-hours needed to review
and maybe-rewrite and retest the millions of tiny shell scripts that have
been written and tested by millions of Debian users with no thought to the
possible
On Mon February 11 2008 03:39:06 Bas Wijnen wrote:
Why do you believe it is better for Debian to harm millions of Debian
users rather than simply using #!/bin/sh.minimal within Debian scripts?
Because that's what Debian does: we fix things, even when they work
while they are broken. A
On Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 02:48:33AM -0800, Mike Bird wrote:
On Mon February 11 2008 02:20:26 Cyril Brulebois wrote:
On 11/02/2008, Mike Bird wrote:
On *production* Debian systems, saving 30 seconds in a boot which
may occur once a year for a kernel security update is not worth a
single
On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 21:40:14 Raphael Geissert wrote:
I've already changed my /bin/sh and I've found very very few
broken/missbehaving scripts.
And as a great pro my boot time is more than 50% faster now, not to mention
that the overall /bin/sh scripts run faster now.
Debian should ensure that
Mike Bird [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon February 11 2008 09:08:24 Russ Allbery wrote:
So switch your /bin/sh back to bash when the Release Notes tell you
about the change and move on with your life. That's why it's
configurable.
Why force millions of Debian users to do this?
I
On Mon February 11 2008 09:08:24 Russ Allbery wrote:
So switch your /bin/sh back to bash when the Release Notes tell you about
the change and move on with your life. That's why it's configurable.
Why force millions of Debian users to do this? Furthermore, some will
ignore the release notes or
On Mon February 11 2008 10:56:38 Luk Claes wrote:
Users don't have to upgrade if they don't want to or they could just
change bin/sh to bin/bash in their scripts and be done with it. So no
need to rewrite or invest time except for a simple script to change
bin/sh to bin/bash.
Like you said,
Mike Bird wrote:
Debian should ensure that millions of Debian users around
the world who have written and tested millions of tiny shell
scripts with no thought to the possibility that /bin/sh may
one day become not-bash will not suffer millions of hours
of down time (or worse - bad data) due
On Mon February 11 2008 02:20:26 Cyril Brulebois wrote:
On 11/02/2008, Mike Bird wrote:
On *production* Debian systems, saving 30 seconds in a boot which
may occur once a year for a kernel security update is not worth a
single broken script, nor a single failed backup, nor a single lost
Hi,
On Monday 11 February 2008 11:48, Mike Bird wrote:
On *production* Debian systems, saving 30 seconds in a boot which
may occur once a year for a kernel security update is not worth a
single broken script, nor a single failed backup, nor a single lost
data bit.
Since you're
Mike Bird [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Debian has a policy which allows it to inflict this change on DD's,
but it is perfectly reasonable for Debian users to have determined
that /bin/sh was linked to bash
Yes.
and for Debian users to assume that /bin/sh will not be changed
No. Why is this
Dash has a serious bug which is causing grief.
The problem is that it overrides the system's test command (in
Debian, /usr/bin/test and /usr/bin/[) and does so in a way which is
inconsistent with the Debian versions.
Nothing in Posix permits this behavior, but it is tolerated by the
standard
Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Dash has a serious bug which is causing grief.
The problem is that it overrides the system's test command (in
Debian, /usr/bin/test and /usr/bin/[) and does so in a way which is
inconsistent with the Debian versions.
Onlookers should see
On Sun, Feb 10, 2008 at 06:16:44PM +, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Dash has a serious bug which is causing grief.
[ strip whining ]
Alas, dash does change the syntax of the command.
[ whine whine whine ]
What is that change please ? Last time I checked dash supported the
proper POSIX
On Sun, 2008-02-10 at 10:57 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Dash has a serious bug which is causing grief.
The problem is that it overrides the system's test command (in
Debian, /usr/bin/test and /usr/bin/[) and does so in a way which is
On Sun, 2008-02-10 at 19:58 +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
On Sun, Feb 10, 2008 at 06:16:44PM +, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Dash has a serious bug which is causing grief.
[ strip whining ]
Alas, dash does change the syntax of the command.
[ whine whine whine ]
What is
Pierre Habouzit wrote:
On Sun, Feb 10, 2008 at 06:16:44PM +, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Dash has a serious bug which is causing grief.
[ strip whining ]
Alas, dash does change the syntax of the command.
[ whine whine whine ]
What is that change please ? Last time I checked
On Sun, Feb 10, 2008 at 06:57:51PM +, Russ Allbery wrote:
Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Dash has a serious bug which is causing grief.
The problem is that it overrides the system's test command (in
Debian, /usr/bin/test and /usr/bin/[) and does so in a way which is
On Sun, Feb 10, 2008 at 07:17:58PM +, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
On Sun, 2008-02-10 at 19:58 +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
On Sun, Feb 10, 2008 at 06:16:44PM +, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Dash has a serious bug which is causing grief.
[ strip whining ]
Alas, dash does
On Sun, 2008-02-10 at 10:57 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Dash has a serious bug which is causing grief.
The problem is that it overrides the system's test command (in
Debian, /usr/bin/test and /usr/bin/[) and does so in a way which is
On Sun, Feb 10, 2008 at 07:29:28PM +, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
How come no-one even *bothered* to check.
For the google impaired, you can find the specification here:
http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/95399/utilities/test.html
And yes, I think it'd be a reasonable thing to ask our
On Sun February 10 2008 10:16:44 Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Shells can override commands, but only if they don't play games with the
syntax.
Agreed. Within the Debian world, dash has redefined test rather
than building in test. Therefore, within the Debian world, dash
is not Posix compliant.
On Sun, Feb 10, 2008 at 02:34:37PM -0500, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
On Sun, 2008-02-10 at 10:57 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Dash has a serious bug which is causing grief.
The problem is that it overrides the system's test command (in
Debian,
On Sun, 2008-02-10 at 20:34 +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
On Sun, Feb 10, 2008 at 07:17:58PM +, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Or are you saying that it's ok for dash to override random Debian
commands in incompatible ways?
Well, let's drop bash right away then !
$ bash -c 'type
On Sun, 2008-02-10 at 22:11 +, brian m. carlson wrote:
On Sun, Feb 10, 2008 at 02:34:37PM -0500, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
On Sun, 2008-02-10 at 10:57 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Dash has a serious bug which is causing grief.
The
brian m. carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The standard posh follows is Debian Policy. If you change Policy, I am
pretty sure that posh will follow[0]. Policy currently specifies a set
of features that are required above and beyond minimal POSIX standards
(echo -n).
Note that people often
On Sun, 2008-02-10 at 11:26 -0800, Mike Bird wrote:
On Sun February 10 2008 10:16:44 Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Shells can override commands, but only if they don't play games with the
syntax.
Agreed. Within the Debian world, dash has redefined test rather
than building in test.
On Sun, Feb 10, 2008 at 11:53:35PM +, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
On Sun, 2008-02-10 at 20:34 +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
On Sun, Feb 10, 2008 at 07:17:58PM +, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Or are you saying that it's ok for dash to override random Debian
commands in
On Mon, 2008-02-11 at 01:54 +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
Well, policy describes usage, and usage (I think) is to assume that
/bin/sh gives you a decently recent POSIX environment (I said POSIX not
GNU) and that if you rely on GNU extensions of tools (like echo -e) you
should call those
On Sun February 10 2008 15:54:36 Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Or to follow Colin's suggestion from the policy discussion a few years
ago, and grant a special exception, carefully crafted, for particular
shell builtins. I have no objection to that solution.
As a Debian user rather than a DD I
On Sun, 2008-02-10 at 22:11 +, brian m. carlson wrote:
As far as I can tell, /usr/bin/test and /usr/bin/[ are completely
useless, because none of bash, dash, posh, or zsh use them. Maybe
pdksh
does, but that's pretty much the list of shells that could be coerced
into being /bin/sh. I
On Sun, 2008-02-10 at 18:12 -0800, Mike Bird wrote:
On Sun February 10 2008 15:54:36 Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Or to follow Colin's suggestion from the policy discussion a few years
ago, and grant a special exception, carefully crafted, for particular
shell builtins. I have no objection
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
On Sun, 2008-02-10 at 18:12 -0800, Mike Bird wrote:
This applies to everything from tarballs of packages which are not yet
in Debian to the dozens of tiny custom scripts that everyone has for
backups or nagios extensions or adding users or emptying cameras etc
On Sun, 2008-02-10 at 21:10 -0600, Raphael Geissert wrote:
On Sun, 2008-02-10 at 18:12 -0800, Mike Bird wrote:
This applies to everything from tarballs of packages which are not yet
in Debian to the dozens of tiny custom scripts that everyone has for
backups or nagios extensions or
Raphael Geissert [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I just replied to Thomas on the bug report including some information
that demonstrates that his arguments on dash not implementing some (at
least the one mentioned on the report) /usr/bin/test features is not
valid. For further reference please see
[Please do _only_ reply to the ML, I read it]
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
On Sun, 2008-02-10 at 21:10 -0600, Raphael Geissert wrote:
FYI Ubuntu already made the switch some time ago and they have all of the
packages from unstable + some more.
By filling bug reports I try to reduce the
On Sun, 2008-02-10 at 20:39 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
So we should also never upgrade /usr/bin/python, /usr/bin/perl, or
/usr/bin/gcc to point at a new upstream version because users may have local
programs that assume particular non-standard behavior from these programs,
right?
I think
Hi,
On Sun, 2008-02-10 at 23:48 -0500, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
On Sun, 2008-02-10 at 20:39 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
So we should also never upgrade /usr/bin/python, /usr/bin/perl, or
/usr/bin/gcc to point at a new upstream version because users may
have local
programs that assume
On Sun, 2008-02-10 at 19:36 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Raphael Geissert [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I just replied to Thomas on the bug report including some information
that demonstrates that his arguments on dash not implementing some (at
least the one mentioned on the report)
On Sun, Feb 10, 2008 at 10:19:15PM -0500, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
On Sun, 2008-02-10 at 21:10 -0600, Raphael Geissert wrote:
On Sun, 2008-02-10 at 18:12 -0800, Mike Bird wrote:
This applies to everything from tarballs of packages which are not yet
in Debian to the dozens of tiny
61 matches
Mail list logo
