On 23/08/10 21:35, Jilles Tjoelker wrote:
> I think you should do what you think is best for the stability of your
> product. Because dash releases are not extensively tested, I'd recommend
> a trial build of at least a minimal base system with the new version you
> choose. A particular feature to
On 08/23/2010 01:47 PM, Adam Kellas wrote:
Am I missing something, or do the -n and -v flags have no effect? The
following compares the behavior of bash, ksh, and dash (bash requires an
extra flag to suppress startup files):
% ksh -v -n -c uname
uname
% bash --norc -v -n uname
uname
% dash -v
Am I missing something, or do the -n and -v flags have no effect? The
following compares the behavior of bash, ksh, and dash (bash requires an
extra flag to suppress startup files):
% ksh -v -n -c uname
uname
% bash --norc -v -n uname
uname
% dash -v -n -c uname
Linux
AK
--
To unsubscribe
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 12:40:48PM +0200, Guido Berhoerster wrote:
> * Jilles Tjoelker [2010-08-23 00:32]:
> > If you want to try something, here is a patch. I have verified that the
> > only change to the results of FreeBSD sh's testsuite is that the test
> > builtins/break2.0 starts working (the
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 02:03:01AM +0200, Harald van Dijk wrote:
> On 23/08/10 01:00, Jilles Tjoelker wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 12:20:12AM +0200, Harald van Dijk wrote:
> >>[...]
> >> echo a:b | { IFS=: read a b; echo $a; }
> >>[...]
> >
> > This has already been fixed in a totally diff
* Jilles Tjoelker [2010-08-23 00:32]:
> If you want to try something, here is a patch. I have verified that the
> only change to the results of FreeBSD sh's testsuite is that the test
> builtins/break2.0 starts working (there are still 51 other broken
> tests). There is no change in output from th
