Re: [bug #18136] MC wont work with new bash-3.2 propeply with all directories.
On Tue, 31 Oct 2006, Leonard den Ottolander wrote: On Mon, 2006-10-30 at 11:45 +0200, Pavel Tsekov wrote: IMO, if you intend to work on a fix you should follow the suggestion of the bash maintainer to switch over to using printf - not only for bash but for all cases. Of course a fallback may be required. After all according to bash maintainer: Use of `echo' in portable applications has been deprecated for years. See: http://www.mail-archive.com/bug-bash@gnu.org/msg02150.html Yes, I read that comment. However I'm not prepared to start breaking the functionality of shells that I never use. This is a rather strange statement. As a developer you should try to go beyond your personal preferences. Changes to the subshell shall be tested with all supported shells and on as many platforms as possible. From Chet Ramey's statement it is clear that using printf is the right thing to do. ___ Mc-devel mailing list http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/mc-devel
Re: [bug #18136] MC wont work with new bash-3.2 propeply with all directories.
On Wed, 1 Nov 2006, Thomas Dickey wrote: On Wed, 1 Nov 2006, Pavel Tsekov wrote: Yes, I read that comment. However I'm not prepared to start breaking the functionality of shells that I never use. This is a rather strange statement. As a developer you should try to go beyond your personal preferences. Changes to the subshell shall be tested with all supported shells and on as many platforms as possible. From Chet Ramey's statement it is clear that using printf is the right thing to do. That's his statement. Jim Meyering's comment is more reasonable. His comment is related to coreutils and not bash. Anyway, he still agrees that printf should be used. If this is the way to go why shall we wait ? ___ Mc-devel mailing list http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/mc-devel
Re: [bug #18136] MC wont work with new bash-3.2 propeply with all directories.
On Wed, 1 Nov 2006, Pavel Tsekov wrote: On Wed, 1 Nov 2006, Thomas Dickey wrote: On Wed, 1 Nov 2006, Pavel Tsekov wrote: Yes, I read that comment. However I'm not prepared to start breaking the functionality of shells that I never use. This is a rather strange statement. As a developer you should try to go beyond your personal preferences. Changes to the subshell shall be tested with all supported shells and on as many platforms as possible. From Chet Ramey's statement it is clear that using printf is the right thing to do. That's his statement. Jim Meyering's comment is more reasonable. His comment is related to coreutils and not bash. Anyway, he still agrees that printf should be used. If this is the way to go why shall we wait ? He's recommending it for new scripts, not recommending that one rewrite existing scripts (and by noting that other shells retain the existing treatment, is pointing out a problem). Anyway - perhaps 3.3 (I'm seeing too many reports of syntax errors in existing scripts to bother with 3.2.x). -- Thomas E. Dickey http://invisible-island.net ftp://invisible-island.net ___ Mc-devel mailing list http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/mc-devel
Re: [bug #18136] MC wont work with new bash-3.2 propeply with all directories.
On Wed, 1 Nov 2006, Thomas Dickey wrote: On Wed, 1 Nov 2006, Pavel Tsekov wrote: On Wed, 1 Nov 2006, Thomas Dickey wrote: On Wed, 1 Nov 2006, Pavel Tsekov wrote: Yes, I read that comment. However I'm not prepared to start breaking the functionality of shells that I never use. This is a rather strange statement. As a developer you should try to go beyond your personal preferences. Changes to the subshell shall be tested with all supported shells and on as many platforms as possible. From Chet Ramey's statement it is clear that using printf is the right thing to do. That's his statement. Jim Meyering's comment is more reasonable. His comment is related to coreutils and not bash. Anyway, he still agrees that printf should be used. If this is the way to go why shall we wait ? He's recommending it for new scripts, not recommending that one rewrite existing scripts (and by noting that other shells retain the existing treatment, is pointing out a problem). Ok. Since I am not native english speaker I cannot judge whether he is recommending it or not. In any case I can see why keeping the old behaviour of 'echo' is important for large scripts, however what we have in MC is nothing as big. I just feel that what Leonard is proposing is a hack and not an actual solution. Anyway - perhaps 3.3 (I'm seeing too many reports of syntax errors in existing scripts to bother with 3.2.x). Does this mean that you think that bash 3.3 will reinstantiate the old behaviour ? ___ Mc-devel mailing list http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/mc-devel
Re: [bug #18136] MC wont work with new bash-3.2 propeply with all directories.
On Wed, 1 Nov 2006, Pavel Tsekov wrote: Ok. Since I am not native english speaker I cannot judge whether he is recommending it or not. In any case I can see why keeping the old behaviour of 'echo' is important for large scripts, however what we have in MC is nothing as big. I just feel that what Leonard is proposing is a hack and not an actual solution. Anyway - perhaps 3.3 (I'm seeing too many reports of syntax errors in existing scripts to bother with 3.2.x). Does this mean that you think that bash 3.3 will reinstantiate the old behaviour ? Not for this (echo -e is a dead issue, though some of the discussion there touches on other problems). But it would be reasonable to expect it to fix the syntax errors. Before rushing off to change things to accommodate bash 3.2, it's worth checking if the fix will work with other shells. -- Thomas E. Dickey http://invisible-island.net ftp://invisible-island.net ___ Mc-devel mailing list http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/mc-devel
Re: [bug #18136] MC wont work with new bash-3.2 propeply with all directories.
Hello Pavel, On Wed, 2006-11-01 at 13:27 +0200, Pavel Tsekov wrote: Yes, I read that comment. However I'm not prepared to start breaking the functionality of shells that I never use. This is a rather strange statement. As a developer you should try to go beyond your personal preferences. As I have limited time I will not be implementing a solution where we replace echo -e with printf. It's not that I don't prefer such a solution, it's just that I will not be implementing it as it will take me too much time. As we are faced with an acute breaking when using bash = 3.2 I am prepared to create a patch that fixes the octal issue. Please let me know if you will be fixing the issue properly by replacing echo -e with printf. If not I will create a fix for the octals issue as the breakage of bash 3.2 needs to be fixed. Leonard. -- mount -t life -o ro /dev/dna /genetic/research ___ Mc-devel mailing list http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/mc-devel
Re: [bug #18136] MC wont work with new bash-3.2 propeply with all directories.
On Wed, 1 Nov 2006, Thomas Dickey wrote: On Wed, 1 Nov 2006, Pavel Tsekov wrote: Ok. Since I am not native english speaker I cannot judge whether he is recommending it or not. In any case I can see why keeping the old behaviour of 'echo' is important for large scripts, however what we have in MC is nothing as big. I just feel that what Leonard is proposing is a hack and not an actual solution. Anyway - perhaps 3.3 (I'm seeing too many reports of syntax errors in existing scripts to bother with 3.2.x). Does this mean that you think that bash 3.3 will reinstantiate the old behaviour ? Not for this (echo -e is a dead issue, though some of the discussion there touches on other problems). But it would be reasonable to expect it to fix the syntax errors. Before rushing off to change things to accommodate bash 3.2, it's worth checking if the fix will work with other shells. The fix which Leonard proposes would not affect the other supported shells. Look at subshell_name_quote() in subshell.c. I am beginning to wonther whether do we really want to escape the characters using echo or printf. ___ Mc-devel mailing list http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/mc-devel
Re: [bug #18136] MC wont work with new bash-3.2 propeply with all directories.
On Wed, 2006-11-01 at 14:55 +0200, Pavel Tsekov wrote: I am beginning to wonther whether do we really want to escape the characters using echo or printf. For embedded backslashes etc. I suppose we do. Leonard. -- mount -t life -o ro /dev/dna /genetic/research ___ Mc-devel mailing list http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/mc-devel
Re: [bug #18136] MC wont work with new bash-3.2 propeply with all directories.
Hello Thomas, On Wed, 2006-11-01 at 07:51 -0500, Thomas Dickey wrote: Before rushing off to change things to accommodate bash 3.2, it's worth checking if the fix will work with other shells. I'm not quite sure which fix you are referring to here. The temporary hack I send to this list should not break the other shells. All it does is add quoting of numbers for these shells. For the (temporary, echo -e) fix I had in mind even this change would be dropped. My idea was to add an ini option bash_oct_digits with possible values 0 (or unset) (automatically detect version via BASH_VERSION in the calling environment (actually querying the subshell seems a bit much) or fallback), 1 (compatibility mode, 4 digit octals with numbers quoted, for bash = 2.05b), 3 (legacy mode, only use 3 digit octals, no need to escape digits) and 4 (use 4 digit octals only, no need to escape digits, for bash = 3.2). Please let me know if there are volunteers to implement the proper solution (using printf) so I don't have to waste my time on a patch that is unnecessary. Thanks. Leonard. -- mount -t life -o ro /dev/dna /genetic/research ___ Mc-devel mailing list http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/mc-devel
Re: [bug #18136] MC wont work with new bash-3.2 propeply with all directories.
On Wed, 2006-11-01 at 15:15 +0200, Pavel Tsekov wrote: The printf solution wouldn't be that hard to implement in fact. It may be even simpler. I can look at it. That would be nice. Thank you. Leonard. -- mount -t life -o ro /dev/dna /genetic/research ___ Mc-devel mailing list http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/mc-devel
Re: [bug #18136] MC wont work with new bash-3.2 propeply with all directories.
Hello Thomas, On Wed, 2006-11-01 at 08:38 -0500, Thomas Dickey wrote: One problem is that the user has to keep track (for the non-automatic workarounds) of the bash version. No. Default setting of 0 (or unset) of bash_octal_digits would fallback to option 1, which works for bash = 2.05b (in contrast to the current situation where by default only bash 3.2 will work). Only users of bash 2.05b will have to either export BASH_VERSION (iiuc BASH_VERSINFO is a set variable, not an environment var so unusable unless one directly queries the subshell) or set bash_octal_digits to 3. Pavel's the person to talk to (I maintain other programs including ncurses) - my point here was noting that bash 3.2 added other problems which are definitely _bugs_ in bash, and that it would not be good to cite 3.2 itself as a good example, but to focus on the feature. The issue of the octal length is independent of any bugs in bash 3.2 and will also exist for later versions. Leonard. -- mount -t life -o ro /dev/dna /genetic/research ___ Mc-devel mailing list http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/mc-devel
Re: [bug #18136] MC wont work with new bash-3.2 propeply with all directories.
Hi Pavel, On Mon, 2006-10-30 at 11:45 +0200, Pavel Tsekov wrote: IMO, if you intend to work on a fix you should follow the suggestion of the bash maintainer to switch over to using printf - not only for bash but for all cases. Of course a fallback may be required. After all according to bash maintainer: Use of `echo' in portable applications has been deprecated for years. See: http://www.mail-archive.com/bug-bash@gnu.org/msg02150.html Yes, I read that comment. However I'm not prepared to start breaking the functionality of shells that I never use. I guess the bash maintainer can give you insight on how to properly detect the bash version (if at all necessary). All I need to establish is whether the version is smaller than 3.2. I think I will use BASH_VERSINFO for this. If that array doesn't exist I will assume bash 3.2. Leonard. -- mount -t life -o ro /dev/dna /genetic/research ___ Mc-devel mailing list http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/mc-devel
Re: [bug #18136] MC wont work with new bash-3.2 propeply with all directories.
Hello, On Sun, 29 Oct 2006, Leonard den Ottolander wrote: Hi Christian, On Sat, 2006-10-28 at 23:48 +0200, Christian Hamar alias krix wrote: Attached patch implements this. This is not a proposition for a final solution, just a temporary hack for users of bash = 3.2. Do not use with versions of bash = 2.05b! Thx for the patch. It works with 3.2 (tested) If you can ride with BASH_VERSINFO then maybe this can be go to CVS. I suppose I will work with the BASH_VERSINFO environment variable. As you told me privately it was introduced in bash-2.0, so I suppose I will assume version 2 if the environment variable is not set. IMO, if you intend to work on a fix you should follow the suggestion of the bash maintainer to switch over to using printf - not only for bash but for all cases. Of course a fallback may be required. After all according to bash maintainer: Use of `echo' in portable applications has been deprecated for years. See: http://www.mail-archive.com/bug-bash@gnu.org/msg02150.html I guess the bash maintainer can give you insight on how to properly detect the bash version (if at all necessary). ___ Mc-devel mailing list http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/mc-devel
Re: [bug #18136] MC wont work with new bash-3.2 propeply with all directories.
Hi Christian, On Sat, 2006-10-28 at 23:48 +0200, Christian Hamar alias krix wrote: Attached patch implements this. This is not a proposition for a final solution, just a temporary hack for users of bash = 3.2. Do not use with versions of bash = 2.05b! Thx for the patch. It works with 3.2 (tested) If you can ride with BASH_VERSINFO then maybe this can be go to CVS. I suppose I will work with the BASH_VERSINFO environment variable. As you told me privately it was introduced in bash-2.0, so I suppose I will assume version 2 if the environment variable is not set. And if it will , then please dont forget to close #18136 :) Yes, I usually work via the bug system. Leonard. -- mount -t life -o ro /dev/dna /genetic/research ___ Mc-devel mailing list http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/mc-devel
Re: [bug #18136] MC wont work with new bash-3.2 propeply with all directories.
Hi, If I understand the comments in the code only bash 2.05b has a problem with 4 number octals. Indeed a test with bash-3.0 confirms this. Since only alphas (not numbers) are not being escaped there are no problems with directories with names like a_0 for 2.05b bash = 3.2. Anyway, instead of testing for bash = 3.2 inside the bash loop we can suffice by adding a version check for bash 2.05b to the shell type test. Leonard. -- mount -t life -o ro /dev/dna /genetic/research ___ Mc-devel mailing list http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/mc-devel
Re: [bug #18136] MC wont work with new bash-3.2 propeply with all directories.
Hi Christian, On Sat, 2006-10-28 at 10:22 +, Christian Hamar wrote: I just upgraded to bash-3.2 and now mc gives me error that Cannot change directory to XY.. . http://www.mail-archive.com/bug-bash@gnu.org/msg02150.html Fix needs to be made to subshell_name_quote() in the (subshell_type == BASH) block. Does bash always set the BASH_VERSINFO environment variable and is the syntax of this parameter portable over all versions (ie how do we best establish bashes version)? Leonard. -- mount -t life -o ro /dev/dna /genetic/research ___ Mc-devel mailing list http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/mc-devel
Re: [bug #18136] MC wont work with new bash-3.2 propeply with all directories.
Hi,
On Sat, 2006-10-28 at 15:30 +0200, Leonard den Ottolander wrote:
Anyway, instead of testing for bash = 3.2 inside the bash loop we can
suffice by adding a version check for bash 2.05b to the shell type
test.
A quick and dirty hack for users of bash = 3.2 would be to just get rid
of the subshell_type == BASH test and block, and use the default block.
If we only escape alphas and not numbers in the default block this hack
should be safe for all users of bash 2.05b as explained in the
previous mail.
Attached patch implements this. This is not a proposition for a final
solution, just a temporary hack for users of bash = 3.2.
Do not use with versions of bash = 2.05b!
Leonard.
--
mount -t life -o ro /dev/dna /genetic/research
--- subshell.c.000 2006-05-08 23:11:48.0 +0200
+++ subshell.c 2006-10-28 15:40:46.0 +0200
@@ -745,29 +745,13 @@ subshell_name_quote (const char *s)
memcpy (d, cmd_start, len);
d += len;
-/*
- * Print every character in octal format with the leading backslash.
- * tcsh and zsh may require 4-digit octals, bash 2.05b doesn't like them.
- */
-if (subshell_type == BASH) {
for (; *s; s++) {
- /* Must quote numbers, so that they are not glued to octals */
if (isalpha ((unsigned char) *s)) {
*d++ = (unsigned char) *s;
} else {
- sprintf (d, \\%03o, (unsigned char) *s);
- d += 4;
- }
- }
-} else {
- for (; *s; s++) {
- if (isalnum ((unsigned char) *s)) {
- *d++ = (unsigned char) *s;
- } else {
sprintf (d, \\0%03o, (unsigned char) *s);
d += 5;
}
- }
}
memcpy (d, common_end, sizeof (common_end));
___
Mc-devel mailing list
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/mc-devel
Re: [bug #18136] MC wont work with new bash-3.2 propeply with all directories.
Attached patch implements this. This is not a proposition for a final solution, just a temporary hack for users of bash = 3.2. Do not use with versions of bash = 2.05b! Thx for the patch. It works with 3.2 (tested) If you can ride with BASH_VERSINFO then maybe this can be go to CVS. And if it will , then please dont forget to close #18136 :) Ps.: My two mail sent directly to you :S sorry about that, i was lazy to see 'To:' field :) Regards Christian Hamar alias krix Hungary ___ Mc-devel mailing list http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/mc-devel
