We all use our number crunching slaves differently, so I have never seen it
until yesterday, but if it's common then there might be a valid reason to
investigate this issue and maybe do some bugfixin' :)
On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 8:10 AM, Mike Frysinger <vap...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On 08 Feb 2016 10:38, Chet Ramey wrote:
> > On 2/8/16 10:36 AM, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> > > Chet Ramey <chet.ra...@case.edu> writes:
> > >> On 2/8/16 9:59 AM, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> > >>> Chet Ramey <chet.ra...@case.edu> writes:
> > >>>
> > >>>> `cd ..' should fail, since the parent no longer exists, and the
> pathname
> > >>>> canonicalization should fail, since there's presumably no longer a
> valid
> > >>>> path to reach the current directory. No value for $PWD is correct.
> > >>>
> > >>> ${PWD%/*} would be a reasonable value. FWIW, this is what ksh uses
> in
> > >>> this case, it doesn't fail.
> > >>
> > >> Why would that be more reasonable than anything else? It references a
> > >> path that doesn't exist.
> > >
> > > Sorry, I misread the OP's message. I didn't notice it's about the
> > > parent's parent, not the parent.
> >
> > It's still an unlikely scenario.
>
> fwiw, i see it semi often when dealing with build systems:
> - use a package manager to build a package
> - PM creates a fresh new dir tree to build/install
> - build fails for whatever reason
> - go into that directory tree (usually multiple levels)
> - figure out problem
> - fix it in a diff window
> - re-run the PM command to build the package in shell in build tree
> - that shell's active tree is now gone and you get shell-init errors
>
> just google "shell-init error retrieving current directory" to see
> many other people randomly running into it as well.
>
> i see it weekly, but i know what's going on, and i build a lot of
> code. so is it "unlikely" ? i guess in the larger scheme of things
> compared it might be, but i wouldn't say it's so unlikely that a user
> would never see it.
> -mike
>
