On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 11:10:44AM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> 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.
Ah! My apologies, you are quite correct that $((var=1)) -is- covered in
the base POSIX standard.
Thanx, Paul
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
