On 10/12/2013 03:01 PM, Ken Moffat wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 01:36:04PM -0500, Dan McGhee wrote:
>> I suppose that the most practical thing for me to do is "jump into" Ch.
>> 6 and build with the script in the hint as it exists now. I could
>> "pause" at the end of this command to see what was happening. However,
>> in a previous life I was an engineer (Oh, no!!) and my OCD has kicked
>> in. First of all, I want to understand everything the script is doing
>> and when I looked at it in my text editor (gedit in Ubuntu) I saw a
>> problem. With that editor the only valid thing in pick is what's
>> between two quotes in an <echo> command. Anything else in pink has
>> something wrong in front of it--a syntax error. In gedit everything in
>> the script after <"$(pwd)"> is pink. There's something wrong, and I'd
>> like to find it before I start.
>>
> Maybe the syntax highlighting in that version of gedit is missing
> or broken. Try vim and see how it looks ('syntax on' in ~/.vimrc or
> /etc/vimrc). I use a black background, with ':colorscheme elflord'
> I didn't see anything unusual when I pasted that line into a script.
>
> Not that vim's highlighting is perfect, it occasionally gets
> confused but usually only when I scroll a long way through a long
> script.
That was one of my first thoughts and so I loaded up a script that I
knew worked and looked at it. It was fine. BTW it was the build script
you helped me with a few years ago. You taught me how to extract the
package name from a tar archive not knowing what the final extender
was--gz, tz, bz, bz2. If you're interested, I've got that down to one
line now instead of four since tar -xf works for all the stuff that I've
tested.
>
> It's also, of course, possible that there is an apparent error
> _before_ this which makes the highlighter confused.
>
That was another one of my first thoughts--of course that begs the
question of how many _first_ thoughts can there be. But I'll be
hornswaggled if I can find anything.
The package users hint now uses a build.conf file to input the specific
commands from the book for each package. The line in question first
appears in a function call to add patches if required. Let me repeat
the whole call for clarity.
-patch)
cd "$HOME/xxxbuild/yyysrc" && srcdir="$(pwd)" || exit 1.
patch_commands # no logging for patch necessary
#test_pipe
;;
Everything just changed! I had a moment of clarity. I can't believe it.
My thought was, "If there's something wrong in that line, the cd...
line, then if I edit it, I might get all the pretty colors back in the
rest of the script. The offensive character I found when I removed it
is the " following $(pwd). When I remove the " gedit indicates that the
syntax is OK. The problem, and it's not really a problem, is that this
exact line is the first in every function call of the script for _make),
_check) and _install). I understand the command because it puts you in
the right directory to run ./configure, make and install.
When I first saw this line, I thought that the purpose of all the " was
to keep the shell from expanding things execpt a few special
characters. As a matter of fact, after I did some more editing just
know, I discovered that it's the combination of () and "" with $pwd that
causes the problem. Either set of characters *used alone* works. In
combination everything after ...d)" including the " is pink in gedit. I
know that last was a highly technical statement of the analysis. :)
I wonder if the first " escapes the first ( and the last " is seen as an
unresolved quote. Well, at least I found the problem, even though the
syntax sin escapes me--no pun intended, but when I read it, it's not a
bad one.
The script has been recently edited. I don't know how recently tested.
Hopefully, we can get the situation corrected.
Thanks again, Ken.
Dan
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
