[1003.1(2008)/Issue 7 0000767]: Add built-in "local"

2017-05-24 Thread Austin Group Bug Tracker
A NOTE has been added to this issue. == http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=767 == Reported By:dwheeler Assigned To:ajosey

Re: What shell implementations to consider (Was: [1003.1(2008)/Issue 7 0000767]: Add built-in "local")

2017-05-24 Thread Robert Elz
Date:Wed, 24 May 2017 20:51:25 +0200 From:Joerg Schilling Message-ID: <5925d62d.mr6gk0tc0ybr6h6k%joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de> | The problem would be if there is deviating behavior only between the shells | that are closer to POSIX and yash/posh, it may b

Re: What shell implementations to consider (Was: [1003.1(2008)/Issue 7 0000767]: Add built-in "local")

2017-05-24 Thread Joerg Schilling
Robert Elz wrote: > To get away from the dick waving "my shell is bigger than yours" > discussions for a minute ... > > In note 3745 attached to http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=767 > Joerg Schilling proposes making a list of shells to use to help > guide what can be regarded as "standard"

Re: What shell implementations to consider (Was: [1003.1(2008)/Issue 7 0000767]: Add built-in "local")

2017-05-24 Thread Robert Elz
To get away from the dick waving "my shell is bigger than yours" discussions for a minute ... In note 3745 attached to http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=767 Joerg Schilling proposes making a list of shells to use to help guide what can be regarded as "standard" for the purposes of compliance.

Re: incorrect example for "export"

2017-05-24 Thread Robert Elz
Date:Wed, 24 May 2017 15:40:07 +0200 From:Joerg Schilling Message-ID: <59258d37.h5t6p4p9cd52ubz7%joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de> | If you later assign a value to that variable, the "export FOO" | command just sets up the export property but does not put the

[1003.1(2008)/Issue 7 0000767]: Add built-in "local"

2017-05-24 Thread Austin Group Bug Tracker
A NOTE has been added to this issue. == http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=767 == Reported By:dwheeler Assigned To:ajosey

Re: What shell implementations to consider (Was: [1003.1(2008)/Issue 7 0000767]: Add built-in "local")

2017-05-24 Thread Joerg Schilling
Stephane CHAZELAS wrote: > > > > $ ./sh -o posix -c 'a=1; { a=2; } < /dev/null; echo "$a"' > > > > 1 > > > > > > > > Again 2 required by POSIX. > > > > Do you have a pointer to the POSIX text that forbids a subshell in this > > case > > when stdin is redirected? > [...] > > I don't know if you

Re: What shell implementations to consider (Was: [1003.1(2008)/Issue 7 0000767]: Add built-in "local")

2017-05-24 Thread Chet Ramey
On 5/24/17 11:40 AM, Stephane CHAZELAS wrote: > 2017-05-24 17:21:33 +0200, Joerg Schilling: >> Do you have a pointer to the POSIX text that forbids a subshell in this case >> when stdin is redirected? > [...] > > I don't know if you'll find some text that *explicitly* forbids > it to run in a su

Re: behaviour when for modified env vars (Was: What shell implementations to consider)

2017-05-24 Thread Joerg Schilling
Stephane CHAZELAS wrote: > 2017-05-24 17:15:25 +0200, Joerg Schilling: > > Stephane CHAZELAS wrote: > [...] > > > $ a=1 ./sh -o posix -c 'a=2; printenv a' > > > 1 > > > > > > POSIX requires 2 to be output there (assuming printenv a command > > > to print the value of a given environment variable

Re: What shell implementations to consider (Was: [1003.1(2008)/Issue 7 0000767]: Add built-in "local")

2017-05-24 Thread Stephane CHAZELAS
2017-05-24 17:21:33 +0200, Joerg Schilling: > Joerg Schilling wrote: > > > I did not change the Bourne Shell behavior as I believe that the > > export behavior is compatibile with POSIX and as this behavior is more > > useful > > than what other shells do. > > > > > $ ./sh -o posix -c 'a=1; {

Re: What shell implementations to consider (Was: [1003.1(2008)/Issue 7 0000767]: Add built-in "local")

2017-05-24 Thread Dan Kegel
On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 8:15 AM, Joerg Schilling wrote: >> $ a=1 ./sh -o posix -c 'a=2; printenv a' >> 1 >> >> POSIX requires 2 to be output there (assuming printenv a command >> to print the value of a given environment variable). > > Do you have a pointer to the related text? I write scripts ev

behaviour when for modified env vars (Was: What shell implementations to consider)

2017-05-24 Thread Stephane CHAZELAS
2017-05-24 17:15:25 +0200, Joerg Schilling: > Stephane CHAZELAS wrote: [...] > > $ a=1 ./sh -o posix -c 'a=2; printenv a' > > 1 > > > > POSIX requires 2 to be output there (assuming printenv a command > > to print the value of a given environment variable). > > Do you have a pointer to the relate

Re: What shell implementations to consider (Was: [1003.1(2008)/Issue 7 0000767]: Add built-in "local")

2017-05-24 Thread Joerg Schilling
Stephane CHAZELAS wrote: > > > ZSH_EMULATION=sh CONFIG_SHELL=/usr/bin/zsh /usr/bin/zsh ./configure > > > > Ok this is what I get: > > > > ZSH_EMULATION=sh CONFIG_SHELL=/usr/bin/zsh /usr/bin/zsh ./configure > > ./configure:777: no matches found: conftest* > > creating cache ./config.cache >

Re: What shell implementations to consider (Was: [1003.1(2008)/Issue 7 0000767]: Add built-in "local")

2017-05-24 Thread Joerg Schilling
Joerg Schilling wrote: > I did not change the Bourne Shell behavior as I believe that the > export behavior is compatibile with POSIX and as this behavior is more useful > than what other shells do. > > > $ ./sh -o posix -c 'a=1; { a=2; } < /dev/null; echo "$a"' > > 1 > > > > Again 2 required b

Re: What shell implementations to consider (Was: [1003.1(2008)/Issue 7 0000767]: Add built-in "local")

2017-05-24 Thread Stephane CHAZELAS
2017-05-24 17:00:25 +0200, Joerg Schilling: [...] > > Let's be serious, if "posh" had such a bug it would have been > > reported long ago and fixed. Presumably, you've compiled > > it in a such way or on such a system that has never been tested > > before and triggered a bug. > > A shell that does

Re: What shell implementations to consider (Was: [1003.1(2008)/Issue 7 0000767]: Add built-in "local")

2017-05-24 Thread Joerg Schilling
Stephane CHAZELAS wrote: > I reported 3 as that was the first 3 I tested: > > $ a=1 ./sh -o posix -c 'a=2; printenv a' > 1 > > POSIX requires 2 to be output there (assuming printenv a command > to print the value of a given environment variable). Do you have a pointer to the related text? I did

Re: What shell implementations to consider (Was: [1003.1(2008)/Issue 7 0000767]: Add built-in "local")

2017-05-24 Thread Stephane CHAZELAS
2017-05-24 16:21:05 +0200, Joerg Schilling: > Stephane Chazelas wrote: > > > 2017-05-24 14:48:12 +0100, Stephane Chazelas: > > [...] > > > > bash > > > > bosh > > > > > > As discussed, as of the 2017-05-16 release, posh was not POSIX > > > and still had many of non-conformances of the Bourne she

Re: What shell implementations to consider (Was: [1003.1(2008)/Issue 7 0000767]: Add built-in "local")

2017-05-24 Thread Joerg Schilling
Stephane CHAZELAS wrote: > 2017-05-24 16:15:03 +0200, Joerg Schilling: > > A configure script (if done correctly) is a script with _very_ > > pessimistic assumptions on portability. Given that "posh" completely fails > > here, makes it unusable for every day work. > > Without being more specif

Re: What shell implementations to consider (Was: [1003.1(2008)/Issue 7 0000767]: Add built-in "local")

2017-05-24 Thread Joerg Schilling
Vincent Lefevre wrote: > On 2017-05-24 16:15:03 +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote: > > I have no idea what "posh" targets, but given that: > > > > posh > > $ exit > > posh: exit: bad number > > I can't reproduce this issue: > > cventin:~> posh > $ exit > cventin:~> > > on a Debian/unstable machine (

Re: What shell implementations to consider (Was: [1003.1(2008)/Issue 7 0000767]: Add built-in "local")

2017-05-24 Thread Stephane CHAZELAS
2017-05-24 16:15:03 +0200, Joerg Schilling: > Stephane Chazelas wrote: > > > If your "configure" script works with "mksh" but not with > > "posh", I suspect it's because that script is using non-POSIX > > ksh extensions, as basically mksh is pdksh with a few fixes and > > extensions added, while

Re: What shell implementations to consider (Was: [1003.1(2008)/Issue 7 0000767]: Add built-in "local")

2017-05-24 Thread Vincent Lefevre
On 2017-05-24 16:15:03 +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote: > I have no idea what "posh" targets, but given that: > > posh > $ exit > posh: exit: bad number I can't reproduce this issue: cventin:~> posh $ exit cventin:~> on a Debian/unstable machine (posh 0.12.6, 14 Feb 2016, so with a version from m

Re: What shell implementations to consider (Was: [1003.1(2008)/Issue 7 0000767]: Add built-in "local")

2017-05-24 Thread Joerg Schilling
Stephane Chazelas wrote: > 2017-05-24 14:48:12 +0100, Stephane Chazelas: > [...] > > > bash > > > bosh > > > > As discussed, as of the 2017-05-16 release, posh was not POSIX > > and still had many of non-conformances of the Bourne shell. > [...] > > Sorry, I meant "bosh", not "posh" above. Well

Re: What shell implementations to consider (Was: [1003.1(2008)/Issue 7 0000767]: Add built-in "local")

2017-05-24 Thread Joerg Schilling
Stephane Chazelas wrote: > If your "configure" script works with "mksh" but not with > "posh", I suspect it's because that script is using non-POSIX > ksh extensions, as basically mksh is pdksh with a few fixes and > extensions added, while posh is pdksh with a few fixes and most > ksh extension

Re: What shell implementations to consider (Was: [1003.1(2008)/Issue 7 0000767]: Add built-in "local")

2017-05-24 Thread Stephane Chazelas
2017-05-24 14:48:12 +0100, Stephane Chazelas: [...] > > bash > > bosh > > As discussed, as of the 2017-05-16 release, posh was not POSIX > and still had many of non-conformances of the Bourne shell. [...] Sorry, I meant "bosh", not "posh" above. The bash/posh/bosh trio sounds like it's been espe

What shell implementations to consider (Was: [1003.1(2008)/Issue 7 0000767]: Add built-in "local")

2017-05-24 Thread Stephane Chazelas
2017-05-24 13:02:56 +, Austin Group Bug Tracker: [...] > (0003745) joerg (reporter) - 2017-05-24 13:02 > http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=767#c3745 > -- > It seems that we should set up a list of shell implementations

Re: incorrect example for "export"

2017-05-24 Thread Joerg Schilling
Vincent Lefevre wrote: > as shown by the following test: > > > #!/bin/sh > > unset FOO > export FOO > > echo "FOO='$FOO'" > > export -p > temp-file > unset FOO > FOO=blah > . temp-file > > echo "FOO='$FOO'" > This

[1003.1(2008)/Issue 7 0000767]: Add built-in "local"

2017-05-24 Thread Austin Group Bug Tracker
A NOTE has been added to this issue. == http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=767 == Reported By:dwheeler Assigned To:ajosey

Re: incorrect example for "export"

2017-05-24 Thread Stephane Chazelas
2017-05-24 15:06:59 +0200, Vincent Lefevre: > It seems that the example for "export" is incorrect: > >Save and restore all exported variables: > >export −p > temp-file >unset a lot of variables >... processing >. temp-file > [...] One may

should unset clear the "export" attribute (Was: [1003.1(2008)/Issue 7 0000767]: Add built-in "local")

2017-05-24 Thread Stephane CHAZELAS
2017-05-24 12:59:59 +, Austin Group Bug Tracker: [...] > (0003744) kre (reporter) - 2017-05-24 12:59 > http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=767#c3744 > -- > We can always avoid the unset var/func ambiguity by always > usi

incorrect example for "export"

2017-05-24 Thread Vincent Lefevre
It seems that the example for "export" is incorrect: Save and restore all exported variables: export −p > temp-file unset a lot of variables ... processing . temp-file as shown by the following test: #!/

[1003.1(2008)/Issue 7 0000767]: Add built-in "local"

2017-05-24 Thread Austin Group Bug Tracker
A NOTE has been added to this issue. == http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=767 == Reported By:dwheeler Assigned To:ajosey

[1003.1(2008)/Issue 7 0000767]: Add built-in "local"

2017-05-24 Thread Austin Group Bug Tracker
A NOTE has been added to this issue. == http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=767 == Reported By:dwheeler Assigned To:ajosey

[1003.1(2008)/Issue 7 0000767]: Add built-in "local"

2017-05-24 Thread Austin Group Bug Tracker
A NOTE has been added to this issue. == http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=767 == Reported By:dwheeler Assigned To:ajosey

[1003.1(2008)/Issue 7 0000767]: Add built-in "local"

2017-05-24 Thread Austin Group Bug Tracker
A NOTE has been added to this issue. == http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=767 == Reported By:dwheeler Assigned To:ajosey

[1003.1(2008)/Issue 7 0000767]: Add built-in "local"

2017-05-24 Thread Austin Group Bug Tracker
A NOTE has been added to this issue. == http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=767 == Reported By:dwheeler Assigned To:ajosey

[1003.1(2008)/Issue 7 0000767]: Add built-in "local"

2017-05-24 Thread Austin Group Bug Tracker
A NOTE has been added to this issue. == http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=767 == Reported By:dwheeler Assigned To:ajosey

[1003.1(2008)/Issue 7 0000767]: Add built-in "local"

2017-05-24 Thread Austin Group Bug Tracker
A NOTE has been added to this issue. == http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=767 == Reported By:dwheeler Assigned To:ajosey

[1003.1(2008)/Issue 7 0000767]: Add built-in "local"

2017-05-24 Thread Austin Group Bug Tracker
A NOTE has been added to this issue. == http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=767 == Reported By:dwheeler Assigned To:ajosey

[1003.1(2008)/Issue 7 0000767]: Add built-in "local"

2017-05-24 Thread Austin Group Bug Tracker
A NOTE has been added to this issue. == http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=767 == Reported By:dwheeler Assigned To:ajosey

Why f() compound-command only? (Was: [1003.1(2008)/Issue 7 0000767]: Add built-in "local")

2017-05-24 Thread Stephane CHAZELAS
2017-05-23 23:38:40 +, Austin Group Bug Tracker: [...] > My guess (pure guess) would be that it was not specified to allow > "command" > but only "compound-command", as allowing "command" that way makes a > redirect > at the end of the line ambiguous - just what does that mean, ie: in > > f()

[1003.1(2008)/Issue 7 0000767]: Add built-in "local"

2017-05-24 Thread Austin Group Bug Tracker
A NOTE has been added to this issue. == http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=767 == Reported By:dwheeler Assigned To:ajosey

[1003.1(2008)/Issue 7 0000767]: Add built-in "local"

2017-05-24 Thread Austin Group Bug Tracker
A NOTE has been added to this issue. == http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=767 == Reported By:dwheeler Assigned To:ajosey

[1003.1(2016)/Issue7+TC2 0001134]: Add getentropy interface

2017-05-24 Thread Austin Group Bug Tracker
A NOTE has been added to this issue. == http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1134 == Reported By:nmav Assigned To: =

[1003.1(2008)/Issue 7 0000767]: Add built-in "local"

2017-05-24 Thread Austin Group Bug Tracker
A NOTE has been added to this issue. == http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=767 == Reported By:dwheeler Assigned To:ajosey