Aha! I have found the cause of the problem - on Solaris 10 ( SunOS xxxxx 5.10 Generic_137111-07 sun4u sparc SUNW,SPARC-Enterprise Solaris ) setting the ksh "pipefail" option causes the "jobs" builtin to fail -
$ set -o pipefail $ ls ... $ jobs [1] + Running ls $ set +o pipefail $ jobs $ Also, when "nohup" is run in a ksh shell with the 'pipefail' setting set, it is often unable to redirect the output of its jobs to nohup.out . Perhaps the "jobs" built-in should be disabled when "pipefail" is in effect on Solaris ? Regards, Jason Vas Dias <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> On Saturday 15 November 2008 18:16:28 Roland Mainz wrote: > Jason Vas Dias wrote: > > > > I've managed to get both the binary solaris release of ast-ksh > > (2008-02-??) and today's latest release built from CVS (2008-11-04) > > into a state where the "jobs" alias consistently returns garbage, and > > I'm trying to figure out how it gets into this state - any suggestions ? > [snip] > > Is there some setting that could account for such behaviour ? > > > > Any ideas anyone ? > > Not ad-hoc... but today I had a ast-ksh.2008-11-04 session where "jobs" > returned a process which did not exist: > -- snip -- > $ > jobs > > [1] + Running sync > $ jobs > -l > > [1] + 1117 Running sync > $ ps -ef | fgrep > 1117 > > test001 1260 684 0 22:12:50 pts/1 0:00 fgrep 1117 > $ kill -0 %1 ; print > $? > > kill: %1: no such job > -- snip -- > > Something weired is going on... ;-( > > ---- > > Bye, > Roland > > -- > __ . . __ > (o.\ \/ /.o) [EMAIL PROTECTED] > \__\/\/__/ MPEG specialist, C&&JAVA&&Sun&&Unix programmer > /O /==\ O\ TEL +49 641 3992797 > (;O/ \/ \O;) > > Re: [ast-developers] jobs bug ? > From: > Jason Vas Dias <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > CC: > [email protected] > Date: > Friday 17:01:39 > > Message was signed by [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Key ID: 0x9A531534FB48BAB7). > The signature is valid and the key is ultimately trusted. > Another twist: > > $ jobs > $ (unset PATH; jobs) # produces bogus output after nohup jobs launched! > [65] + Running /usr/bin/jobs > ... > [1] Running env > $ /usr/bin/jobs # No bogus output > $ > > Fix: > > Put : > 'alias jobs=/usr/bin/jobs' > > in one's .kshrc > > Any better fixes ? > > Thanks & Regards, > Jason > > On Fri, 2008-11-14 at 16:37 -0500, Jason Vas Dias wrote: > > I've managed to get both the binary solaris release of ast-ksh > > (2008-02-??) and today's latest release built from CVS (2008-11-04) > > into a state where the "jobs" alias consistently returns garbage, and > > I'm trying to figure out how it gets into this state - any suggestions ? > > > > Here is the problem : > > > > Every time I run any command, it gets added to the jobs list, even if no > > command is actually run, let alone in the background: > > > > $ env > > ... > > $ josb > > /home/cmob/bin/sol10.sun4/ksh: josb: not found [No such file or > > directory] > > $ jobs > > [3] + Running josb > > [2] - Running env > > [1] Running env > > $ jobs > > [4] + Running jobs > > [3] - Running josb > > [2] Running env > > [1] Running env > > $ job > > /home/cmob/bin/sol10.sun4/ksh: job: not found [No such file or > > directory] > > $ jobs > > [6] + Running job > > [5] - Running jobs > > [4] Running jobs > > [3] Running josb > > [2] Running env > > [1] Running env > > $ jobs > > [7] + Running jobs > > [6] - Running job > > [5] Running jobs > > [4] Running jobs > > [3] Running josb > > [2] Running env > > [1] Running env > > $ jobs > > [8] + Running jobs > > [7] - Running jobs > > [6] Running job > > [5] Running jobs > > [4] Running jobs > > [3] Running josb > > [2] Running env > > [1] Running env > > > > > > It even does this when I move: > > $ mv ~/.kshrc .not-kshrc > > $ mv ~/.login .not-login > > $ mv ~/.profile .not-profile > > > > But I'm sure it did not do this before I started playing around with > > these files. There are several real large 'nohup' jobs going on - it > > does not get into this state before I initiate large nohup jobs. > > > > Once in this state, it does not get out of it until my nohup jobs are > > complete. > > > > Is there some setting that could account for such behaviour ? > > > > Any ideas anyone ? > > > > Any help on this would be much appreciated . > > > > Thanks & Regards, > > > > Jason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > ast-developers mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://mailman.research.att.com/mailman/listinfo/ast-developers > > End of signed message > _______________________________________________ > ast-developers mailing list > [email protected] > https://mailman.research.att.com/mailman/listinfo/ast-developers _______________________________________________ ast-developers mailing list [email protected] https://mailman.research.att.com/mailman/listinfo/ast-developers
