Eric Siegerman wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 02:11:37AM +0000, Dr. David Kirkby wrote: > > "test: ==: unexpected operator" on a Sun running NetBSD 1.6 > > "==" is indeed unexpected :-) Bourne shell doesn't support it; I > don't believe ksh does either. It looks like a bash extension, > in which shell it does pattern matching. (Even the standalone > /usr/bin/test on my Mandrake 7.2 box doesn't support "=="; only > bash's built-in "test" does.) > > Use "=" or "!=" for string comparison; for numeric comparison the > operators are: > -eq -ne -gt -ge -lt -le
Thanks, I assume then in this case I should be using -eq, since I am comparing the numeric values of something - whether it is 0 or has been incremented by one or two. > > The section below between the two rows of stars works fine on a Sun > > workstation running Solaris 9 (tcsh shell), a Sun workstation running > > Debian Linux (bash shell), a PC running Redhat 7.3 Linux (tcsh shell), > > I bet the Solaris box has bash installed -- and as /bin/sh too! > Linux systems typically have bash as /bin/sh, so the script's > success there is unsurprising. The Solaris box does indeed have bash installed, but it is NOT /bin/sh. /bin/sh is unchanged from the default Sun installation. I do however have a /usr/local/bin/test, which is possibly what is being used on the Sun and not on the other system. I think I might delete that, as there seem no way I can find out where it is from. It's a binary, but does not respond to -v, -V, -h or any other switch I can think of. Hence its origin is unknown. Perhaps best deleted. Someone else wrote that bit of code on a Dec Alpha, which runs on his system, although I don't know what OS he runs on it - probably Linux though. I know he uses the bash shell, but whether that is /bin/sh on his machine I have no idea. > By "(tcsh shell)" I presume you mean it's your login shell. > That's irrelevent; what matters is the one named in the script's > "#!" line. Yes, tcsh is my login shell - I keep meaning to change there seems to a lot to suggest scsh/tcsh are not a good choice. However, the configure script created has /bin/sh as the first line in it. Would I be right in assuming there is some sense in temporarily changing /bin/sh to point to different shells in order to check portability? -- Dr. David Kirkby, Senior Research Fellow, Department of Medical Physics, University College London, 11-20 Capper St, London, WC1E 6JA. Tel: 020 7679 6408 Fax: 020 7679 6269 Internal telephone: ext 46408 e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
