Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Sergei Golovan writes ("Re: dash bug which is affecting release goal"):
>> Expression ${1+"$@"} means "if $1 exists use "$@", otherwise nothing".
>> It's a workaround for a bug in some old
Sergei Golovan writes ("Re: dash bug which is affecting release goal"):
> Expression ${1+"$@"} means "if $1 exists use "$@", otherwise nothing".
> It's a workaround for a bug in some old bash version which erroneously
> converted "$@"
* William Pitcock:
> On Sun, 2008-02-24 at 14:00 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> John H. Robinson, IV writes ("Re: dash bug which is affecting release goal"):
>> > Pierre Habouzit wrote:
>> > > echo() { /bin/echo "$@" }
>> >
>>
On 2/24/08, William Pitcock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 2008-02-24 at 14:00 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > John H. Robinson, IV writes ("Re: dash bug which is affecting release
> goal"):
> > > Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> > > > echo() {
On Sun, 2008-02-24 at 08:30 -0600, William Pitcock wrote:
> On Sun, 2008-02-24 at 14:00 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > John H. Robinson, IV writes ("Re: dash bug which is affecting release
> > goal"):
> > > Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> > > > echo() { /b
On Sun, 2008-02-24 at 14:00 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> John H. Robinson, IV writes ("Re: dash bug which is affecting release goal"):
> > Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> > > echo() { /bin/echo "$@" }
> >
> > echo() { /bin/echo ${1+"$@"}; }
&
John H. Robinson, IV writes ("Re: dash bug which is affecting release goal"):
> Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> > echo() { /bin/echo "$@" }
>
> echo() { /bin/echo ${1+"$@"}; }
>
> I believe you mean.
Why ?!
Ian.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
Pierre Habouzit wrote:
>
> echo() { /bin/echo "$@" }
echo() { /bin/echo ${1+"$@"}; }
I believe you mean.
--
John H. Robinson, IV [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http
WARNING: I cannot be held responsible for the above,
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>
> Release Notes do not magically fix millions of tiny shell scripts.
>
> Thomas
Setting /bin/sh back to bash "does"
Cheers,
Raphael
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon February 11 2008 10:56:38 Luk Claes wrote:
> Users don't have to upgrade if they don't want to or they could just
> change bin/sh to bin/bash in their scripts and be done with it. So no
> need to rewrite or invest time except for a simple script to change
> bin/sh to bin/bash.
>
> Like you s
On ma, 2008-02-11 at 09:41 -0800, Mike Bird wrote:
> On Mon February 11 2008 09:08:24 Russ Allbery wrote:
> > So switch your /bin/sh back to bash when the Release Notes tell you about
> > the change and move on with your life. That's why it's configurable.
>
> Why force millions of Debian users
Mike Bird wrote:
> On Mon February 11 2008 02:20:26 Cyril Brulebois wrote:
>> On 11/02/2008, Mike Bird wrote:
>>> On *production* Debian systems, saving 30 seconds in a boot which
>>> may occur once a year for a kernel security update is not worth a
>>> single broken script, nor a single failed bac
Mike Bird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon February 11 2008 09:08:24 Russ Allbery wrote:
>> So switch your /bin/sh back to bash when the Release Notes tell you
>> about the change and move on with your life. That's why it's
>> configurable.
> Why force millions of Debian users to do this?
I
On Mon February 11 2008 09:08:24 Russ Allbery wrote:
> So switch your /bin/sh back to bash when the Release Notes tell you about
> the change and move on with your life. That's why it's configurable.
Why force millions of Debian users to do this? Furthermore, some will
ignore the release notes o
Mike Bird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Release notes do not offset the millions of person-hours needed to
> review and maybe-rewrite and retest the millions of tiny shell scripts
> that have been written and tested by millions of Debian users with no
> thought to the possible consequences of subs
[No need to Cc me; I'm subscribed. Please respect my M-F-T.]
On Sun, Feb 10, 2008 at 08:39:45PM -0600, William Pitcock wrote:
On Sun, 2008-02-10 at 22:11 +, brian m. carlson wrote:
As far as I can tell, /usr/bin/test and /usr/bin/[ are completely
useless, because none of bash, dash, posh,
On Mon February 11 2008 04:19:25 Frans Pop wrote:
> Hmmm. To be honest up till now I was assuming that the change of the
> default would only affect _new_ installs and that existing systems being
> upgraded from Etch to Lenny would be unaffected.
This is certainly good news. If I overlooked a cle
On Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 03:39:29PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Andreas Bombe:
>
> > How many million person-hours does it really need to substitute
> > "#!/bin/sh" by "#!/bin/bash" once per script? That's even easily
> > scriptable, and I don't see the need for any amount of reviewing and
>
Am Montag, 11. Februar 2008 16:12:04 schrieb Mike Bird:
> On Mon February 11 2008 06:53:43 Adam Borowski wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 01:33:54AM -0800, Mike Bird wrote:
> > > On *production* Debian systems, saving 30 seconds in a boot
> > > which may occur once a year for a kernel security up
On Mon February 11 2008 06:53:43 Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 01:33:54AM -0800, Mike Bird wrote:
> > On *production* Debian systems, saving 30 seconds in a boot
> > which may occur once a year for a kernel security update is
> > not worth a single broken script, nor a single faile
On Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 01:33:54AM -0800, Mike Bird wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 21:40:14 Raphael Geissert wrote:
> > I've already changed my /bin/sh and I've found very very few
> > broken/missbehaving scripts.
> > And as a great pro my boot time is more than 50% faster now, not to mention
> > tha
* Andreas Bombe:
> How many million person-hours does it really need to substitute
> "#!/bin/sh" by "#!/bin/bash" once per script? That's even easily
> scriptable, and I don't see the need for any amount of reviewing and
> testing for such simple a bug fix.
/bin/sh behaves differently than /bin/
Am Montag, 11. Februar 2008 13:19:25 schrieb Frans Pop:
> Mike Bird wrote:
> > Debian should ensure that millions of Debian users around
> > the world who have written and tested millions of tiny shell
> > scripts with no thought to the possibility that /bin/sh may
> > one day become not-bash will
On Mon, 2008-02-11 at 11:20 +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> On 11/02/2008, Mike Bird wrote:
> > Debian should ensure that millions of Debian users around the world
> > who have written and tested millions of tiny shell scripts with no
> > thought to the possibility that /bin/sh may one day become
On Mon, 2008-02-11 at 01:54 -0600, William Pitcock wrote:
> It's possible for programs to completely change between versions. There
> really is no difference in reality between switching from program A to
> program B and switching from program A 1.1 to 1.2. The risk of problems
> is exactly the sa
On Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 02:48:33AM -0800, Mike Bird wrote:
> Release notes do not offset the millions of person-hours needed to review
> and maybe-rewrite and retest the millions of tiny shell scripts that have
> been written and tested by millions of Debian users with no thought to the
> possible
Mike Bird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Debian has a policy which allows it to inflict this change on DD's,
> but it is perfectly reasonable for Debian users to have determined
> that /bin/sh was linked to bash
Yes.
> and for Debian users to assume that /bin/sh will not be changed
No. Why is th
Mike Bird wrote:
> Debian should ensure that millions of Debian users around
> the world who have written and tested millions of tiny shell
> scripts with no thought to the possibility that /bin/sh may
> one day become not-bash will not suffer millions of hours
> of down time (or worse - bad data)
Hi,
On Monday 11 February 2008 11:48, Mike Bird wrote:
> > > On *production* Debian systems, saving 30 seconds in a boot which
> > > may occur once a year for a kernel security update is not worth a
> > > single broken script, nor a single failed backup, nor a single lost
> > > data bit.
> > Since
On Mon February 11 2008 03:39:06 Bas Wijnen wrote:
> > Why do you believe it is better for Debian to harm millions of Debian
> > users rather than simply using #!/bin/sh.minimal within Debian scripts?
>
> Because that's what Debian does: we fix things, even when they work
> while they are broken.
On Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 02:48:33AM -0800, Mike Bird wrote:
> On Mon February 11 2008 02:20:26 Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> > On 11/02/2008, Mike Bird wrote:
> > > On *production* Debian systems, saving 30 seconds in a boot which
> > > may occur once a year for a kernel security update is not worth a
>
On Mon February 11 2008 02:20:26 Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> On 11/02/2008, Mike Bird wrote:
> > On *production* Debian systems, saving 30 seconds in a boot which
> > may occur once a year for a kernel security update is not worth a
> > single broken script, nor a single failed backup, nor a single lo
On 11/02/2008, Mike Bird wrote:
> Debian should ensure that millions of Debian users around the world
> who have written and tested millions of tiny shell scripts with no
> thought to the possibility that /bin/sh may one day become not-bash
> will not suffer millions of hours of down time (or worse
On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 21:40:14 Raphael Geissert wrote:
> I've already changed my /bin/sh and I've found very very few
> broken/missbehaving scripts.
> And as a great pro my boot time is more than 50% faster now, not to mention
> that the overall /bin/sh scripts run faster now.
Debian should ensure t
Hi,
On Sun, 2008-02-10 at 23:48 -0500, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> On Sun, 2008-02-10 at 20:39 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > So we should also never upgrade /usr/bin/python, /usr/bin/perl, or
> > /usr/bin/gcc to point at a new upstream version because users may
> have local
> > programs that a
On Sun, 2008-02-10 at 20:39 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> So we should also never upgrade /usr/bin/python, /usr/bin/perl, or
> /usr/bin/gcc to point at a new upstream version because users may have local
> programs that assume particular non-standard behavior from these programs,
> right?
I thin
On Sun, 2008-02-10 at 19:36 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Raphael Geissert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I just replied to Thomas on the bug report including some information
> > that demonstrates that his arguments on dash not implementing some (at
> > least the one mentioned on the report) /
On Sun, Feb 10, 2008 at 10:19:15PM -0500, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> On Sun, 2008-02-10 at 21:10 -0600, Raphael Geissert wrote:
> > > On Sun, 2008-02-10 at 18:12 -0800, Mike Bird wrote:
> > >> This applies to everything from tarballs of packages which are not yet
> > >> in Debian to the dozens o
[Please do _only_ reply to the ML, I read it]
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>
> On Sun, 2008-02-10 at 21:10 -0600, Raphael Geissert wrote:
>>
>> FYI Ubuntu already made the switch some time ago and they have all of the
>> packages from unstable + some more.
>> By filling bug reports I try to reduce
Raphael Geissert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I just replied to Thomas on the bug report including some information
> that demonstrates that his arguments on dash not implementing some (at
> least the one mentioned on the report) /usr/bin/test features is not
> valid. For further reference pleas
On Sun, 2008-02-10 at 21:10 -0600, Raphael Geissert wrote:
> > On Sun, 2008-02-10 at 18:12 -0800, Mike Bird wrote:
> >
> >> This applies to everything from tarballs of packages which are not yet
> >> in Debian to the dozens of tiny custom scripts that everyone has for
> >> backups or nagios exten
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>
> On Sun, 2008-02-10 at 18:12 -0800, Mike Bird wrote:
>
>> This applies to everything from tarballs of packages which are not yet
>> in Debian to the dozens of tiny custom scripts that everyone has for
>> backups or nagios extensions or adding users or emptying camera
On Sun, 2008-02-10 at 18:12 -0800, Mike Bird wrote:
> On Sun February 10 2008 15:54:36 Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > Or to follow Colin's suggestion from the policy discussion a few years
> > ago, and grant a special exception, carefully crafted, for particular
> > shell builtins. I have no obje
On Sun, 2008-02-10 at 22:11 +, brian m. carlson wrote:
> As far as I can tell, /usr/bin/test and /usr/bin/[ are completely
> useless, because none of bash, dash, posh, or zsh use them. Maybe
> pdksh
> does, but that's pretty much the list of shells that could be coerced
> into being /bin/sh
On Sun February 10 2008 15:54:36 Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Or to follow Colin's suggestion from the policy discussion a few years
> ago, and grant a special exception, carefully crafted, for particular
> shell builtins. I have no objection to that solution.
As a Debian user rather than a DD I
On Mon, 2008-02-11 at 01:54 +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> Well, policy describes usage, and usage (I think) is to assume that
> /bin/sh gives you a decently recent POSIX environment (I said POSIX not
> GNU) and that if you rely on GNU extensions of tools (like echo -e) you
> should call those
On Sun, Feb 10, 2008 at 11:53:35PM +, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>
> On Sun, 2008-02-10 at 20:34 +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 10, 2008 at 07:17:58PM +, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > >
> > > Or are you saying that it's ok for dash to override random Debian
> > > commands
On Sun, 2008-02-10 at 22:11 +, brian m. carlson wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 10, 2008 at 02:34:37PM -0500, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> >On Sun, 2008-02-10 at 10:57 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> >> Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>
> >> > Dash has a serious bug which is causing grie
On Sun, 2008-02-10 at 11:26 -0800, Mike Bird wrote:
> On Sun February 10 2008 10:16:44 Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > Shells can override commands, but only if they don't play games with the
> > syntax.
>
> Agreed. Within the Debian world, dash has redefined test rather
> than building in test.
On Sun, 2008-02-10 at 20:34 +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 10, 2008 at 07:17:58PM +, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> >
> > Or are you saying that it's ok for dash to override random Debian
> > commands in incompatible ways?
>
> Well, let's drop bash right away then !
>
> $ bash
"brian m. carlson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The standard posh follows is Debian Policy. If you change Policy, I am
> pretty sure that posh will follow[0]. Policy currently specifies a set
> of features that are required above and beyond minimal POSIX standards
> (echo -n).
>
> Note that peo
On Sun, Feb 10, 2008 at 02:34:37PM -0500, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
On Sun, 2008-02-10 at 10:57 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Dash has a serious bug which is causing grief.
>
> The problem is that it overrides the system's "test" command (in
> Deb
On Sun February 10 2008 10:16:44 Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Shells can override commands, but only if they don't play games with the
> syntax.
Agreed. Within the Debian world, dash has redefined test rather
than building in test. Therefore, within the Debian world, dash
is not Posix compliant.
Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 10, 2008 at 06:16:44PM +, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> Dash has a serious bug which is causing grief.
>>
>> [ strip whining ]
>
>> Alas, dash does change the syntax of the command.
>>
>> [ whine whine whine ]
>
> What is that change please ? Last tim
On Sun, Feb 10, 2008 at 07:29:28PM +, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> How come no-one even *bothered* to check.
For the google impaired, you can find the specification here:
http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/95399/utilities/test.html
And yes, I think it'd be a reasonable thing to ask our
On Sun, 2008-02-10 at 10:57 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Dash has a serious bug which is causing grief.
> >
> > The problem is that it overrides the system's "test" command (in
> > Debian, /usr/bin/test and /usr/bin/[) and does so in a way whi
On Sun, Feb 10, 2008 at 07:17:58PM +, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>
> On Sun, 2008-02-10 at 19:58 +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 10, 2008 at 06:16:44PM +, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > > Dash has a serious bug which is causing grief.
> > >
> > > [ strip whining ]
> >
> > >
On Sun, Feb 10, 2008 at 06:57:51PM +, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Dash has a serious bug which is causing grief.
> >
> > The problem is that it overrides the system's "test" command (in
> > Debian, /usr/bin/test and /usr/bin/[) and does so in a w
On Sun, 2008-02-10 at 10:57 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Dash has a serious bug which is causing grief.
> >
> > The problem is that it overrides the system's "test" command (in
> > Debian, /usr/bin/test and /usr/bin/[) and does so in a way whi
On Sun, 2008-02-10 at 19:58 +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 10, 2008 at 06:16:44PM +, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > Dash has a serious bug which is causing grief.
> >
> > [ strip whining ]
>
> > Alas, dash does change the syntax of the command.
> >
> > [ whine whine whine ]
>
On Sun, Feb 10, 2008 at 06:16:44PM +, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Dash has a serious bug which is causing grief.
>
> [ strip whining ]
> Alas, dash does change the syntax of the command.
>
> [ whine whine whine ]
What is that change please ? Last time I checked dash supported the
proper
Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Dash has a serious bug which is causing grief.
>
> The problem is that it overrides the system's "test" command (in
> Debian, /usr/bin/test and /usr/bin/[) and does so in a way which is
> inconsistent with the Debian versions.
Onlookers should see
Dash has a serious bug which is causing grief.
The problem is that it overrides the system's "test" command (in
Debian, /usr/bin/test and /usr/bin/[) and does so in a way which is
inconsistent with the Debian versions.
Nothing in Posix permits this behavior, but it is tolerated by the
standard *p
63 matches
Mail list logo
