Hi all,
On Sunday, December 16, 2018 11:01 PM, Robert Elz wrote:
> | The chance of this happening in the future, when it has not happened
> | so far, is vanishingly small.
>
> I agree that it would be very rare, which is exactly why now, it doesn't
> really matter which way it gets defined. But
Siteshwar Vashisht wrote:
> > Last time I got him (I did no try to contact him later) he answered my
> > questions, but it may be that he will not actively help in the development.
>
> This discussion is diverting from original topic of pipefail standardization,
> but still I would try to
Date:Sat, 15 Sep 2018 19:54:20 -0400
From:Chet Ramey
Message-ID: <6236131b-b65d-7d08-c48a-fbca06fc2...@case.edu>
| The chance of this happening in the future, when it has not happened
| so far, is vanishingly small.
I agree that it would be very rare, which is
On 9/11/18 4:46 PM, Robert Elz wrote:
> If it is unspecified, then a script cannot start an async pipeline,
> then want to run another while the first is executing, with a
> different pipefail setting (different to that for the first) as as soon as
> the pipefail option is changed while the async
- Original Message -
> From: "Joerg Schilling"
> To: svashi...@redhat.com
> Cc: k...@munnari.oz.au, "chet ramey" ,
> austin-group-l@opengroup.org
> Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2018 1:23:42 PM
> Subject: Re: Status of pipefail for standard
Siteshwar Vashisht wrote:
> > It seems that these people are not talking with David Korn.
>
> I tried to reach dgk several times in last couple of years, but never
> managed to get a response from him. It would be great if he becomes active in
> the discussions again, but it's unlikely to
Siteshwar Vashisht wrote:
> > Bash and ksh93 (at least the latest version I have from git).
> >
> > $ ./src/cmd/ksh93/ksh -c 'type -t printf'
> > builtin
>
> This flag was added with last beta release of ksh (ksh93v-) that came out from
> AT This is related entry from changelog[1] :
>
>
- Original Message -
> From: "Joerg Schilling"
> To: k...@munnari.oz.au, "chet ramey"
> Cc: austin-group-l@opengroup.org
> Sent: Friday, September 14, 2018 1:05:17 PM
> Subject: Re: Status of pipefail for standardization
>
> There seems to be a p
- Original Message -
> From: "Chet Ramey"
> To: "Robert Elz"
> Cc: "chet ramey" , austin-group-l@opengroup.org
> Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2018 5:43:07 PM
> Subject: Re: Status of pipefail for standardization
>
> On 9/11/18 10:56
Robert Elz wrote:
> Date:Tue, 11 Sep 2018 11:43:07 -0400
> From:Chet Ramey
> Message-ID:
>
>
> | Bash and ksh93 (at least the latest version I have from git).
> |
> | $ ./src/cmd/ksh93/ksh -c 'type -t printf'
> | builtin
>
> The version of ksh93 I have
Date:Tue, 11 Sep 2018 14:52:26 -0400
From:Chet Ramey
Message-ID: <58f1d638-c77c-279d-fdd1-81a104a10...@case.edu>
| I'm ok with making it unspecified (and recommended it in note 4120).
Yes, though in this case the alternative is actually a more rational
result,
On 9/11/18 12:24 PM, Robert Elz wrote:
> Date:Tue, 11 Sep 2018 11:43:07 -0400
> From:Chet Ramey
> Message-ID:
>
>
> | Bash and ksh93 (at least the latest version I have from git).
> |
> | $ ./src/cmd/ksh93/ksh -c 'type -t printf'
> | builtin
>
> The
On 9/11/18 10:56 AM, Robert Elz wrote:
> Date:Tue, 11 Sep 2018 09:44:01 -0400
> From:Chet Ramey
> Message-ID:
>
> | There is prior art here. The group has simply chosen not to standardize
> | `type -t'.
>
> Oh, this is too good - you'd almost think it was a
Date:Tue, 11 Sep 2018 15:18:11 +0100
From:Geoff Clare
Message-ID: <20180911141811.GA30977@lt2.masqnet>
| So it looks like we do have a way to do what you were hoping.
That's great - even if there is just that one issue currently (plus 3 aardvark
bugs) using that
Date:Tue, 11 Sep 2018 09:44:01 -0400
From:Chet Ramey
Message-ID:
| There is prior art here. The group has simply chosen not to standardize
| `type -t'.
Oh, this is too good - you'd almost think it was a setup (it wasn't...)
OK, so we have the problem, and the
Robert Elz wrote, on 11 Sep 2018:
>
> | Usually if a feature is proposed that isn't ready for standardisation
> | we would close the Mantis bug with a note saying (but less bluntly) "try
> | again when it's ready". However, I suppose we might make an exception if
> | there is good reason
On 9/11/18 7:38 AM, Robert Elz wrote:
> Eg - and for this one I have no proposed solution for at the minute - as best
> I can tell right now, there's no standard way to tell if a command is built
> into the
> shell or not. In fact the standard goes to some extreme with the intent of
> making
Date:Tue, 11 Sep 2018 11:02:24 +0100
From:Geoff Clare
Message-ID: <20180911100224.GA27521@lt2.masqnet>
| Okay, I have added an alternative (bugnote 4115) based on this suggestion,
| although it uses "pipe sequence status" as a locally-defined term rather
| than
Robert Elz wrote, on 11 Sep 2018:
>
> | I looked at the text on netbsd.gw.com/cgi-bin/man-cgi?sh++NetBSD-current
> | and I do not think it could easily be adapted for use in the standard.
> | The main problem is that it considers the '!' not to be part of the
> | "pipeline" that has a
Date:Mon, 10 Sep 2018 16:49:49 +0100
From:Geoff Clare
Message-ID: <20180910154949.GA26031@lt2.masqnet>
| I looked at the text on netbsd.gw.com/cgi-bin/man-cgi?sh++NetBSD-current
| and I do not think it could easily be adapted for use in the standard.
OK
| The
Robert Elz wrote, on 07 Sep 2018:
>
> [...] in the NetBSD man page description of pipefail we handle the
> exit status issue (with/without pipefail, with/without !) a little
> differently.
> Our text defines a pipestatus for a pipeline, which is the thing that
> pipefail controls, and then
Date:Fri, 7 Sep 2018 09:35:39 +0100
From:Geoff Clare
Message-ID: <20180907083539.GA5774@lt2.masqnet>
| Since kre reported in bugnote 4102 that he added pipefail to the
| NetBSD sh and it does not support arrays, it seems we have our
| answer on that one.
I am
Drew DeVault wrote, on 05 Sep 2018:
>
> On 2018-09-05 8:18 AM, Drew DeVault wrote:
> > Copying David on the thread. David, do you have some time to look over
> > this proposal for the POSIX shell?
>
> My email to David bounced and I don't have a better address for him.
> Does anyone else have a
On 2018-09-05 8:18 AM, Drew DeVault wrote:
> Copying David on the thread. David, do you have some time to look over
> this proposal for the POSIX shell?
My email to David bounced and I don't have a better address for him.
Does anyone else have a way of getting in touch?
> We had previously asked for input from Chet Ramey and David Korn and
> got a reply from Chet but not from David.
Copying David on the thread. David, do you have some time to look over
this proposal for the POSIX shell?
http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=789
I also saw some more discussion
Drew DeVault wrote, on 04 Sep 2018:
>
> Hi there! The following ticket has been around for a while discussing
> the possibility of including set -o pipefail in the standard shell. I'm
> writing in to see if this is still under consideration - it's been some
> time and the issue seems
26 matches
Mail list logo
