This may be some 'cockpit error', but this is what I'm seeing right
now and AFAICT, bash is broken.
I have this statement:
next line is line #300
have_dep -v base_mp_diff base_vg osnap_lv osnap_vg {
nextents=$(get_nextents_for_space_on_vg_w_minfree \
On 09.08.2011 15:50, Steven W. Orr wrote:
On 8/9/2011 5:29 AM, Bernd Eggink wrote:
On 09.08.2011 03:44, Jon Seymour wrote:
Has anyone ever come across an equivalent to Linux's readlink -f
that is implemented purely in bash?
You can find my version here:
Hiya,
not sure who to report that to, but it looks like the usenet to
mailing-list gateway at least for gnu.bash.bug is not working
properly. That is, messages posted to the newsgroup are not
sent to the corresponding mailing list.
Compare for instance
On Tue, Aug 09, 2011 at 05:47:09PM -0700, Linda Walsh wrote:
Bob Proulx wrote:
This may be a good point to mention this reference:
http://www.pixelbeat.org/programming/stdio_buffering/
Does it only work with gnu programs? I.e. how would they know to
not buffer
Sounds like
Greg Wooledge wrote:
Linda Walsh wrote:
Bob Proulx wrote:
This may be a good point to mention this reference:
http://www.pixelbeat.org/programming/stdio_buffering/
Does it only work with gnu programs? I.e. how would they know to
not buffer
Sounds like the GNU
On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 10:07:20AM -0600, Bob Proulx wrote:
The unbuffer expect script sets up a tty around the called program so
that instead of a pipe the program detects a tty.
The stdbuf utility works by setting up an LD_PRELOAD library
libstdbuf.so that replaces the libc calls and
Or maybe I'm not groking. When one compares against a b0rk symlink, the
result of -nt (newer than) is true--when it isn't!
mkdir directory
ln -s noexist symlink
touch -hr directory symlink
test directory -nt symlink echo yes ||echo no
They have identical mtimes (as set by touch)--i.e.
On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 11:53:52AM -0700, Curtis Doty wrote:
touch -hr directory symlink
touch: illegal option -- h
Hmm, what is that? Let's check a GNU/Linux box:
-h, --no-dereference
affect each symbolic link instead of any referenced file (useful
only
* Curtis Doty phe...@terraxrl.arg [2011-08-10 11:53:52 -0700]:
They have identical mtimes (as set by touch)--i.e. the directory is
*not* newer than the symlink--but it still outputs yes. Why?
mtime for a symlink comes from stat(), not stat().
anything is newer than a non-existent object.
--
On 8/10/11 2:53 PM, Curtis Doty wrote:
Or maybe I'm not groking. When one compares against a b0rk symlink, the
result of -nt (newer than) is true--when it isn't!
mkdir directory
ln -s noexist symlink
touch -hr directory symlink
test directory -nt symlink echo yes ||echo no
On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 03:25:49PM -0400, Chet Ramey wrote:
The man page says:
file1 -nt file2
True if file1 is newer (according to modification date) than
file2, or if file1 exists and file2 does not.
Ah. The help test page is shorter:
FILE1 -nt FILE2 True if file1
Chet Ramey wrote:
Yes. It's a case of not saving and restoring enough state across
possibly-
recursive calls to the shell parser. (The assignment statement is the
key
in this case.)
So, I compared subst.c files from bash-4.1-9 and bash-4.2-10 and was
able
to build a patch that it
On 08/10/2011 03:59 PM, Linda Walsh wrote:
Is this a fluke, due to the above changes NOT being 4.1? Or is this
construction going to break in 4.2:
'$((( )))'
According to POSIX, this construction should be parsed as an arithmetic
substitution $(()) where the expression is (expr), if at all
Brace expansion using incrementers sometimes produces unexpected results with
regard to padding.
Note the following 4 examples not using incrementers:
bash echo {0..9}
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
bash echo {00..9}
00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09
bash echo {0..09}
00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09
bash echo
When I have the construct, in 4.1:
1 #!/bin/bash
2
30
31 # trace control for subs
32 declare -ix Allow_Trace=$(((
33 _D_LowLevel |
34 _D_Provides |
35 _D_
36 )))
37
38 declare -ix
not sure who to report that to
I've asked the FSF sysadmins. I can see from the mailing list
configuration that the gateway is intended to be operational, but don't
know how to debug what it happening from there.
Best,
Karl
On 8/10/11 5:59 PM, Linda Walsh wrote:
Chet Ramey wrote:
Yes. It's a case of not saving and restoring enough state across
possibly-
recursive calls to the shell parser. (The assignment statement is the
key
in this case.)
So, I compared subst.c files from bash-4.1-9 and
On 8/10/11 6:23 PM, Linda W wrote:
When I have the construct, in 4.1:
1 #!/bin/bash
2 30 31 # trace control for subs
32 declare -ix Allow_Trace=$(((
33 _D_LowLevel |
34 _D_Provides |
35 _D_ 36
On 8/10/11 4:43 PM, gregry . wrote:
bash echo {0..9..2}
0 2 4 6 8
bash echo {00..9..2}
00 02 04 06 08
bash echo {0..09..2}
0 2 4 6 8
bash echo {00..09..2}
0 2 4 6 8
The first two are as expected, but the last two have unexpected additional
Eric Blake wrote:
On 08/10/2011 03:59 PM, Linda Walsh wrote:
Is this a fluke, due to the above changes NOT being 4.1? Or is this
construction going to break in 4.2:
'$((( )))'
According to POSIX, this construction should be parsed as an arithmetic
substitution $(()) where the expression is
I thought the $( ) was necessary to make the inner (()) an arithmetic
expression... Does it execute in a sub process?
No, $( ) is for process substitution, $(( )) is for an arithmetic context.
I normally (in Bash), use (( )) outside the whole expression since it
gives me complete freedom of
On 8/10/11 8:57 PM, Linda Walsh wrote:
Chet Ramey wrote:
Is this a fluke, due to the above changes NOT being 4.1? Or is
this construction going to break in 4.2:
'$((( )))'
What does `break' mean? It's already written in a manner more
confusing and obscure than
On 8/10/11 8:44 PM, Linda Walsh wrote:
It sounded to me like $(( )) would be translated into $( () ),
turning off arithmetic expansion. Did I read that incorrectly?
Yes. You missed the content of the resolution and changed language
in the standard:
The syntax
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 5:59 AM, Linda Walsh b...@tlinx.org wrote:
Bash is becoming very unstable -- programs that work in 3.1 won't
necessarily work in 3.2, those in 3.2 aren't compat with 4.0, 4.0 is
different than 4.1, and now 4.2 is different than 4.1.
How can people write stable
Chet Ramey wrote:
If not, then wouldn't
$((( ))) be turned into $( (( )) ), meaning the arith returns a
status,
and not the calculation. (I've tested this, and this is the case.
This is demonstrably false.
---
No... you've only proven that you should have a bit of 'compassion'
for my
25 matches
Mail list logo
