Am Wed, Sep 28, 2022 at 05:57:02PM +0530 schrieb Nilesh Patra: > > % cat /etc/debian_version > > bookworm/sid > > > > gives: > > > > % sh -x ./debian/tests/run-unit-test
Ahhh, I see run-unit-test is known. > > [...] > > + [ -f dcmp2pgm.out ] > > + md5sum --check checksums > > md5sum: checksums: no properly formatted checksum lines found > > + echo FAIL > > FAIL > > + rm -rf /tmp/dcmtk-test.5wl9lz > > That's because you are explicitly interpreting it with `sh` rather than > shebang do > its job which sets it to bash. > I suspect that on your system, `sh` is linked to `dash` and that indeed fails > as well > for me. > > $ dash -x ./debian/tests/run-unit-test > [...] > + md5sum --check checksums > md5sum: checksums: no properly formatted MD5 checksum lines found > + echo FAIL > + rm -rf /tmp/dcmtk-test.jJjF3b > FAIL > > However if I change the permissions and run it, > > $ chmod +x ./debian/tests/run-unit-test; ./debian/tests/run-unit-test > [...] > CT_small.dcm: OK > PASS Hmmm, that sounds a bit weak for testing if the shell that was used has an influence on the result. :-( > And same for: > $ bash ./debian/tests/run-unit-test > [...] > CT_small.dcm: OK > PASS > > I wrote a little reasoning for it below:- > > > I would need to change: > > > > echo -e "15e7e2a11cdeabac32e1134674beda6b CT_small.dcm" >> checksums > > > > into: > > > > echo "15e7e2a11cdeabac32e1134674beda6b CT_small.dcm" >> checksums > > Yep. That's because "echo -e" introduces bashism > > As an example, with bash: > > $ echo -e "Test 17" > Test 17 > > With dash: > $ echo -e "Test 17" > -e Test 17 > > Now if that script is run with sh linked to dash, there are tonnes > of "-e" infront of the filenames, I did a cat of the checksums file and here > is what I see: > > -e 15e7e2a11cdeabac32e1134674beda6b CT_small.dcm > > md5sum cannot interpret the "-e" and chokes. We should make the test independent from this. IMHO just removing the '-e' option should do the trick. > > ref: > > * > > https://salsa.debian.org/med-team/dcmtk/-/commit/61bcbf663b79ee177dee878c72d6eda9b33683ea#8c77cc51b09ef1f7b294222180bcdb53ebb70e2f_0_23 > > > > oh well... > > In this case it might make sense to remove the "-e" to make the script posix > compliant, since I do not > particularly see the need to enable backslash interpretation. +1 Kind regards Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de
