On Wednesday 20 August 2008, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 09:51:47PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > On Monday 21 July 2008, Robin Getz wrote: > > > On Wed 16 Jul 2008 04:54, Paul E. McKenney pondered: > > > > So everyone wants LTP to fail one Linux distros that happen to make > > > > /bin/sh be a real Bourne shell? Sounds like this kind of defeats the > > > > purpose of testing... > > > > > > LTP assumes a POSIX compliant shell - not bash. > > > > > > If there are things in the build system (and I know there are) that > > > assume bash, and fail on a different shell, I think the preferred > > > patches are ones that make the script require only POSIX compliance - > > > not changing the /bin/sh location. > > > > > > If your shell is not POSIX - then the feeling has been that that is > > > your issue, and not everyone else should suffer for it. > > > > except in this case it isnt a POSIX issue. the shell in use is broken. > > You seem to be extremely confused. > > If you say "/bin/sh", you are only guaranteed the base POSIX > functionality, which does not include "for ((i=0;i<$n;i++))" syntax.
no, i was referring to the $((var=1)) syntax. this thread is a mess, so coordinating relevant topics is pretty much guaranteed to not happen. -mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/
_______________________________________________ Ltp-list mailing list Ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list
