Re: bash exorcism experiment ('bug' 762923 & 763012)

On Oct 19, Marc Haber wrote: > Ah. That explains your plans. Making life with a split-off /usr as > hard as possible to that people migrate to /usr on / because of the > artificially caused pain. No, my evil plan is to use mind control to force people to migrate / in /usr. -- ciao, Marco sig

Re: bash exorcism experiment ('bug' 762923 & 763012)

On Sun, 2014-10-19 at 11:48 +0200, Marc Haber wrote: > On Thu, 16 Oct 2014 15:49:29 +0200, m...@linux.it (Marco d'Itri) wrote: > >On Oct 16, Thorsten Glaser wrote: > > > >> > | If one of the members of the tech ctte considers that we should > >> > | either overwrite the udev-maintainer or move p

Re: bash exorcism experiment ('bug' 762923 & 763012)

On Thu, 16 Oct 2014 15:49:29 +0200, m...@linux.it (Marco d'Itri) wrote: >On Oct 16, Thorsten Glaser wrote: > >> > | If one of the members of the tech ctte considers that we should >> > | either overwrite the udev-maintainer or move printf to /bin, we >> The coreutils maintainer may still decide

Re: bash exorcism experiment ('bug' 762923 & 763012)

On Oct 16, Thorsten Glaser wrote: > > | If one of the members of the tech ctte considers that we should > > | either overwrite the udev-maintainer or move printf to /bin, we > The coreutils maintainer may still decide to do just that. > That’s what would help the most. In a few years, when /{bi

Re: bash exorcism experiment ('bug' 762923 & 763012)

On Thu, 16 Oct 2014, Ian Jackson wrote: > | If one of the members of the tech ctte considers that we should > | either overwrite the udev-maintainer or move printf to /bin, we The coreutils maintainer may still decide to do just that. That’s what would help the most. bye, //mirabilos -- Yes,

Re: bash exorcism experiment ('bug' 762923 & 763012)

Thorsten Glaser writes ("Re: bash exorcism experiment ('bug' 762923 & 763012)"): > I’d rather prefer to see this resolved by getting #428189 fixed. Clearly you would, but #428189 (moving coreutils printf to /bin) was also implicitly rejected by the TC in its decision o

Re: bash exorcism experiment ('bug' 762923 & 763012)

On Wed, 2014-10-15 at 23:36 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > Actually, the problem is indeed in policy. In its resolution of > #539158 the TC decided unanimously (but unfortunately slightly > implicitly) that printf ought to be provided by our /bin/sh. > > Unfortunately the policy has not been properly

Re: bash exorcism experiment ('bug' 762923 & 763012)

On Wed, 15 Oct 2014, Ian Jackson wrote: > Actually, the problem is indeed in policy. In its resolution of > #539158 the TC decided unanimously (but unfortunately slightly > implicitly) that printf ought to be provided by our /bin/sh. Somewhat. > As the maintainer of a minority shell, Thorsten h

Re: bash exorcism experiment ('bug' 762923 & 763012)

Wouter Verhelst writes ("Re: bash exorcism experiment ('bug' 762923 & 763012)"): > But that's *also* not the point. The point is that we have a policy > which states particular things, and that you should follow that policy. > If you think policy is wrong,

Re: bash exorcism experiment ('bug' 762923 & 763012)

On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 10:10:00AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote: > On Oct 15, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > If you target posh, you target all shells that policy allows for -- > > including those that are smaller and/or faster than dash. > > Can you list some, and what benefits they would bring over das

$*/$@/$IFS and Bourne vs Almquist vs Korn vs mksh (Was: bash exorcism experiment ('bug' 762923 & 763012))

2014-10-15 12:13:06 +0200, Thorsten Glaser: > On Mon, 13 Oct 2014, Stephane Chazelas wrote: > > > $*, $@, "$*" were not special in any way. They just underwent > > the same rules as other variables. Only "$@" was. > > This changed in POSIX sh though. I remember having > to change some things in mks

Re: bash exorcism experiment ('bug' 762923 & 763012)

On Mon, 13 Oct 2014, Stephane Chazelas wrote: > $*, $@, "$*" were not special in any way. They just underwent > the same rules as other variables. Only "$@" was. This changed in POSIX sh though. I remember having to change some things in mksh to adhere to 2008 and post-2008. bye, //mirabilos --

Re: bash exorcism experiment ('bug' 762923 & 763012)

On Oct 15, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > If you target posh, you target all shells that policy allows for -- > including those that are smaller and/or faster than dash. Can you list some, and what benefits they would bring over dash? -- ciao, Marco signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: bash exorcism experiment ('bug' 762923 & 763012)

On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 10:05:20PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > If you need array variables, it's likely that the script has grown so > complex that switching to another language is a good idea. /etc/init.d/nbd-client It's not exactly *needed*; I could replace it with a set of eval instructions

Re: bash exorcism experiment ('bug' 762923 & 763012)

On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 10:43:08AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote: > On Oct 13, Matthias Urlichs wrote: > > > Policy effectively states that Debian packages shall not depend on any > > features which posh doesn't have. > > So in what way is that a bad idea, and how should one know beforehand? > That t

Re: bash exorcism experiment ('bug' 762923 & 763012)

]] Thorsten Glaser > Stephane Chazelas dixit: > > [ a lot, with which I vehemently disagree ] > > >If you need arrays, use "$@" or use "perl/python/ruby...", but > >please don't break yet another shell with the Korn arrays or > >arithmetics. > > The good part about mksh i̲s̲ that it’s a progra

Re: bash exorcism experiment ('bug' 762923 & 763012)

2014-10-02 10:06:50 -0400, shawn wilson: [...] > I hate the idea of dash. It's not more secure (see vmware cve for an > example) and I think it was more of an accident than anything else this > didn't hit dash too. [...] That CVE is not about a bug in dash. There are a few misconceptions around th

Re: bash exorcism experiment ('bug' 762923 & 763012)

2014-09-29 09:22:58 +1000, Russell Stuart: > On Sun, 2014-09-28 at 16:47 +0200, Guillem Jover wrote: > > > I've attempted to port the many shell scripts I've written over the > > > years to dash. The three irritants are: > > > > > > - pipefail, > > > >

Re: bash exorcism experiment ('bug' 762923 & 763012)

Stephane Chazelas dixit: [ a lot, with which I vehemently disagree ] >If you need arrays, use "$@" or use "perl/python/ruby...", but >please don't break yet another shell with the Korn arrays or >arithmetics. The good part about mksh i̲s̲ that it’s a programming language, a nice one to use, much

Re: bash exorcism experiment ('bug' 762923 & 763012)

2014-10-13 12:21:33 +0200, Thorsten Glaser: > On Mon, 13 Oct 2014, Dominik George wrote: > > > foo='x[$(rm -rf /)]' > > echo $(( foo )) > > > > Guess when the array index is evaluated? Now mind that it could be > > This is fully and completely a user error. (User being the script.) > > > user-p

Re: bash exorcism experiment ('bug' 762923 & 763012)

2014-10-07 15:03:05 +0200, Thorsten Glaser: > On Sat, 4 Oct 2014, Russ Allbery wrote: > > > >> If we were to decide that #309415 should be fixed in policy (and hence > > >> posh), then it should be done by requiring support for the obsolescent > > The problems with posh and dash are also the shee

Re: bash exorcism experiment ('bug' 762923 & 763012)

Theodore Ts'o writes ("Re: bash exorcism experiment ('bug' 762923 & 763012)"): > I assume that posh meets the strict definition of 10.4. And so > without actually changing policy, someone _could_ try setting /bin/sh > to be /bin/posh, and then start filin

Re: bash exorcism experiment ('bug' 762923 & 763012)

On Mon, 13 Oct 2014, Dominik George wrote: > foo='x[$(rm -rf /)]' > echo $(( foo )) > > Guess when the array index is evaluated? Now mind that it could be This is fully and completely a user error. (User being the script.) > user-provided. Never put “tainted” input into ksh arithmetics, period

Re: bash exorcism experiment ('bug' 762923 & 763012)

On Sat, 11 Oct 2014, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > I assume that posh meets the strict definition of 10.4. And so > without actually changing policy, someone _could_ try setting /bin/sh > to be /bin/posh, and then start filing RC bugs against packages that > have scripts that break. Yes? Yes, modulo

Re: bash exorcism experiment ('bug' 762923 & 763012)

On Oct 13, Matthias Urlichs wrote: > Policy effectively states that Debian packages shall not depend on any > features which posh doesn't have. > So in what way is that a bad idea, and how should one know beforehand? That there is no reason to waste time targeting posh, which is bigger and slowe

Re: bash exorcism experiment ('bug' 762923 & 763012)

Hi, Marco d'Itri: > On Oct 11, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > > but if a user > > wants to use /bin/posh, that's an individual user's choice :-) > We have no obligation to support every bad idea that people have. > Policy effectively states that Debian packages shall not depend on any features which pos

Re: bash exorcism experiment ('bug' 762923 & 763012)

On Mon, 2014-10-13 at 06:23 +0200, Dominik George wrote: > foo='x[$(rm -rf /)]' > echo $(( foo )) > > Guess when the array index is evaluated? Now mind that it could be > user-provided. In dash it isn't executed which means on Debian at least it's most harmless. That's another bouquet for dash.

Re: bash exorcism experiment ('bug' 762923 & 763012)

>> Array variables practically imply arithmetic evaluation, amd this is >a >> shell feature which is rather difficult to use correctly because >> compatibility with other shell encourages both recursive evaluation >> and access to the full shell language in a few corners. I think the idea here was

Re: bash exorcism experiment ('bug' 762923 & 763012)

On Sun, 2014-10-12 at 22:05 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > Array variables practically imply arithmetic evaluation, amd this is a > shell feature which is rather difficult to use correctly because > compatibility with other shell encourages both recursive evaluation > and access to the full shell l

Re: bash exorcism experiment ('bug' 762923 & 763012)

Hi Florian, On Sonntag, 12. Oktober 2014, Florian Weimer wrote: > Array variables practically imply arithmetic evaluation, amd this is a > shell feature which is rather difficult to use correctly because > compatibility with other shell encourages both recursive evaluation > and access to the full

Re: bash exorcism experiment ('bug' 762923 & 763012)

On Oct 11, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > But if individual Debian developers were to fix their own packages, or > suggest patches as non-RC bugs, there wouldn't be any real harm, and > possibly some good (especially for those people who are very much into > pedantry, and don't mind a slightly slower sys

Re: bash exorcism experiment ('bug' 762923 & 763012)

* Russell Stuart: > - array variables. Array variables practically imply arithmetic evaluation, amd this is a shell feature which is rather difficult to use correctly because compatibility with other shell encourages both recursive evaluation and access to the full shell language in a few corne

Re: bash exorcism experiment ('bug' 762923 & 763012)

On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 10:37:26AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > > You have convinced me that in this case it's going to have to be that > > way, so my prejudices notwithstanding. I've rationalised the pain away > > by deciding it's no so bad as any competent programmer could see that is > > it onl

Re: bash exorcism experiment ('bug' 762923 & 763012)

Russell Stuart writes: > Not really. I'm about documentation reflecting reality. Think of > putting an electrical component whose documentation says its 200 degrees > on a motherboard, only to find it fails at 190. When you ask why, is > "well we design it for 200, but only test it to 180" a s

Re: Fwd: bash exorcism experiment ('bug' 762923 & 763012)

Le Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 06:07:19PM +0200, Thorsten Glaser a écrit : > > I deliberately used an extremely few insulting word for this > but I don’t know how to else express it. And I do not believe > in staying quiet if it can’t be politely expressed, because, > let’s face it, the real world *is* f

Re: Fwd: bash exorcism experiment ('bug' 762923 & 763012)

Hi, Adam Borowski: > > The only acceptable concrete value for 'extremely few' is Zero. > > I'd say losing patience is quite understandable in this case Probably. However, the context of this thread was not at all about a maintainer who refused to apply a perfectly sensible patch. Getting confron

Re: bash exorcism experiment ('bug' 762923 & 763012)

On Tue, 7 Oct 2014, Adam Borowski wrote: > change your /bin/sh), 2. being (then) a violation of a "must" clause of > the policy. To be fair: my bug wasn’t about -a and -o, but about the printf builtin which Policy is silent about. Some shells do have a builtin printf, most don’t. printf(1) lives

Re: Fwd: bash exorcism experiment ('bug' 762923 & 763012)

On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 07:41:30PM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote: > Thorsten Glaser: > > I deliberately used an extremely few insulting word for this > > You should have deliberated a bit more, then. > > The only acceptable concrete value for 'extremely few' is Zero. I'd say losing patience is q

Re: Fwd: bash exorcism experiment ('bug' 762923 & 763012)

Hi, Thorsten Glaser: > I deliberately used an extremely few insulting word for this You should have deliberated a bit more, then. The only acceptable concrete value for 'extremely few' is Zero. -- -- Matthias Urlichs -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a s

Fwd: bash exorcism experiment ('bug' 762923 & 763012)

Forwarding a bit of my answer on this. I don’t know what to think about how this criticism immediately raises responses like the two I already got, yet the other person in question is allowed to disrespect his fellow DDs and just ignore the fixes for real-world, although minority, problems. I deli

Re: bash exorcism experiment ('bug' 762923 & 763012)

On 10/07/2014 at 02:39 AM, Russell Stuart wrote: > On Fri, 2014-10-03 at 09:20 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: >> Oh! I didn't realize or internalize that you were proposing >> switching the default shell to posh from dash. Yes, that would >> certainly improve our compliance with Policy considerably

Re: bash exorcism experiment ('bug' 762923 & 763012)

On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 03:03:05PM +0200, Thorsten Glaser wrote: > Yeah, but Md is an arsehole anyway and requires printf to be > a /bin/sh builtin instead of just adding /usr/bin to $PATH, > especially now that the initrd mounts /usr already anyway, > and CTTE decided to rather offend me than Md b

Re: bash exorcism experiment ('bug' 762923 & 763012)

On Sat, 4 Oct 2014, Russ Allbery wrote: > >> If we were to decide that #309415 should be fixed in policy (and hence > >> posh), then it should be done by requiring support for the obsolescent The problems with posh and dash are also the sheer number of bugs in corner cases, which the more activel

Re: bash exorcism experiment ('bug' 762923 & 763012)

On Fri, 2014-10-03 at 09:20 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Russell Stuart writes: > > I looks to me like you are re-writing history. > > I'm not sure how you meant this, but to note, this sentence made me very > sad, since it felt like you believe I'm being intentionally dishonest with > you. I'm

Re: bash exorcism experiment ('bug' 762923 & 763012)

On 09/28/2014 10:33 AM, Colin Watson wrote: > On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 09:11:44PM -0500, Troy Benjegerdes wrote: >> Does update-menus really need bash? Why? > > pipefail is actually a fairly useful bashism. Use mispipe from moreutils instead. -- Bernd ZeimetzDebian

Re: bash exorcism experiment ('bug' 762923 & 763012)

On Sat, Oct 04, 2014 at 11:19:42AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Jakub Wilk writes: > > * Colin Watson , 2014-10-04, 09:43: > >> If we were to decide that #309415 should be fixed in policy (and hence > >> posh), then it should be done by requiring support for the obsolescent > >> XSI extensions tes

Re: bash exorcism experiment ('bug' 762923 & 763012)

Jakub Wilk writes: > * Colin Watson , 2014-10-04, 09:43: >> If we were to decide that #309415 should be fixed in policy (and hence >> posh), then it should be done by requiring support for the obsolescent >> XSI extensions test -a and test -o. > It's already fixed: > * ‘test’, if implemented as

Re: bash exorcism experiment ('bug' 762923 & 763012)

* Colin Watson , 2014-10-04, 09:43: If we were to decide that #309415 should be fixed in policy (and hence posh), then it should be done by requiring support for the obsolescent XSI extensions test -a and test -o. It's already fixed: * ‘test’, if implemented as a shell built-in, must support

Re: bash exorcism experiment ('bug' 762923 & 763012)

On Fri, Oct 03, 2014 at 10:42:56AM +1000, Russell Stuart wrote: > On Fri, 2014-10-03 at 00:04 +, brian m. carlson wrote: > > Unfortunately, some developers have outright refused to make their > > software using /bin/sh work with posh, even when provided with a patch > > (e.g. #309415), to the p

Re: bash exorcism experiment ('bug' 762923 & 763012)

Russell Stuart writes: > On Thu, 2014-10-02 at 20:43 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: >> A lot of people miss this about Policy 10.4. People seem to think that >> Policy 10.4 is about requirements for shell scripts. But it's just as >> much a standard for /bin/sh. > You wrote it, so I guess you get

Re: bash exorcism experiment ('bug' 762923 & 763012)

On Thu, 2014-10-02 at 20:43 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > A lot of people miss this about Policy 10.4. People seem to think that > Policy 10.4 is about requirements for shell scripts. But it's just as > much a standard for /bin/sh. You wrote it, so I guess you get to say what it means. But if yo

Re: bash exorcism experiment ('bug' 762923 & 763012)

Russell Stuart writes: > On Thu, 2014-10-02 at 18:05 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: >> Up until dash changes, and then you have absolutely no idea what to do >> with that sort of policy. There's a reason why no standards document >> I've ever seen says something like this. The ISO C standard isn't

Re: bash exorcism experiment ('bug' 762923 & 763012)

On Thu, 2014-10-02 at 18:05 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Up until dash changes, and then you have absolutely no idea what to do > with that sort of policy. There's a reason why no standards document I've > ever seen says something like this. The ISO C standard isn't going to say > that anything t

Re: bash exorcism experiment ('bug' 762923 & 763012)

On Thu, 2014-10-02 at 22:50 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > Debian policy mandates that /bin/sh implement a _superset_ of POSIX, which > is out of scope for "posh". Regardless, posh implements all the additional features mandated by 10.4: echo -n, if implemented as a shell built-in,

Re: bash exorcism experiment ('bug' 762923 & 763012)

Henrique de Moraes Holschuh writes: > On Fri, 03 Oct 2014, Russell Stuart wrote: >> You've got me to look at posh. Thanks for that. >> So we do have a shell that developers can use to test their scripts >> match Debian policy. > "posh" is useful to test if a script restricts itself to POSIX fe

Re: bash exorcism experiment ('bug' 762923 & 763012)

On Fri, 03 Oct 2014, Russell Stuart wrote: > On Fri, 2014-10-03 at 00:04 +, brian m. carlson wrote: > > The shell you're describing is posh. It implements exactly those > > features, and nothing more. > > You've got me to look at posh. Thanks for that. > > So we do have a shell that develop

Re: bash exorcism experiment ('bug' 762923 & 763012)

Russell Stuart writes: > IMO, if Debian has decided the in the default case /bin/sh ==> dash, > then the policy should say "#!/bin/sh scripts" must work with dash. It > then becomes trivial for Developers to test their code conforms with > policy. Up until dash changes, and then you have absolu

Re: bash exorcism experiment ('bug' 762923 & 763012)

On Fri, 2014-10-03 at 00:04 +, brian m. carlson wrote: > The shell you're describing is posh. It implements exactly those > features, and nothing more. You've got me to look at posh. Thanks for that. So we do have a shell that developers can use to test their scripts match Debian policy. >

Re: bash exorcism experiment ('bug' 762923 & 763012)

On Fri, Oct 03, 2014 at 09:39:29AM +1000, Russell Stuart wrote: > IMO, if Debian has decided the in the default case /bin/sh ==> dash, > then the policy should say "#!/bin/sh scripts" must work with dash. It > then becomes trivial for Developers to test their code conforms with > policy. If we al

Re: bash exorcism experiment ('bug' 762923 & 763012)

On Thu, 2014-10-02 at 11:48 +0200, Thorsten Glaser wrote: > This is wrong. Every script starting with #!/bin/sh must work with a > POSIX shell that supports “local” and “echo -n” (Policy §10.4). Solid, working software is hard enough to produce. A policy requiring something you can't test for mak

Re: bash exorcism experiment ('bug' 762923 & 763012)

Ok then, I stand (doubly) corrected. Thanks On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 1:06 PM, Simon McVittie wrote: > On 02/10/14 17:30, shawn wilson wrote: >> I'm pretty sure dash never got a rewrite? So this just happened to be >> a "feature" that got ripped out of dash. > > You seem to be under the impression t

Re: bash exorcism experiment ('bug' 762923 & 763012)

shawn wilson writes: > On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 11:33 AM, Russ Allbery wrote: >> shawn wilson writes: >>> I hate the idea of dash. It's not more secure (see vmware cve for an >>> example) and I think it was more of an accident than anything else >>> this didn't hit dash too. >> The fact that thi

Re: bash exorcism experiment ('bug' 762923 & 763012)

On 02/10/14 17:30, shawn wilson wrote: > I'm pretty sure dash never got a rewrite? So this just happened to be > a "feature" that got ripped out of dash. You seem to be under the impression that dash is some sort of fork or derivative of bash. It isn't; I don't think they even have a common ancest

Re: bash exorcism experiment ('bug' 762923 & 763012)

On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 11:33 AM, Russ Allbery wrote: > shawn wilson writes: > >> I hate the idea of dash. It's not more secure (see vmware cve for an >> example) and I think it was more of an accident than anything else this >> didn't hit dash too. > > The fact that this specific problem didn't h

Re: bash exorcism experiment ('bug' 762923 & 763012)

shawn wilson writes: > I hate the idea of dash. It's not more secure (see vmware cve for an > example) and I think it was more of an accident than anything else this > didn't hit dash too. The fact that this specific problem didn't hit dash certainly isn't an accident. The exploited functionali

Re: bash exorcism experiment ('bug' 762923 & 763012)

On Sep 30, 2014 7:59 PM, "Russell Stuart" wrote: > > On Tue, 2014-09-30 at 13:08 +0200, Thorsten Glaser wrote: > > You really really should be looking at replacing any > > ash variant with mksh. It’s not that much bigger (at > > least if you add -DMKSH_SMALL to CPPFLAGS and build > > with klibc or

Re: bash exorcism experiment ('bug' 762923 & 763012)

On Wed, 1 Oct 2014, Russell Stuart wrote: > The only reason I ported things to dash is /bin/sh is now linked to it, > which in view makes it the standard shell. Every script starting with > #!/bin/sh must work with. If I can't get it working because of a This is wrong. Every script starting wit

Re: bash exorcism experiment ('bug' 762923 & 763012)

On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 06:23:22PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Russell Stuart writes: > > The only reason I ported things to dash is /bin/sh is now linked to it, > > which in view makes it the standard shell. Every script starting with > > #!/bin/sh must work with. If I can't get it working be

Re: bash exorcism experiment ('bug' 762923 & 763012)

Russell Stuart writes: > The only reason I ported things to dash is /bin/sh is now linked to it, > which in view makes it the standard shell. Every script starting with > #!/bin/sh must work with. If I can't get it working because of a > missing feature like arrays then I have to change it to #

Re: bash exorcism experiment ('bug' 762923 & 763012)

On Tue, 2014-09-30 at 13:08 +0200, Thorsten Glaser wrote: > You really really should be looking at replacing any > ash variant with mksh. It’s not that much bigger (at > least if you add -DMKSH_SMALL to CPPFLAGS and build > with klibc or dietlibc or so), but much saner. I am not a fan of any parti

Re: bash exorcism experiment ('bug' 762923 & 763012)

On Sun, 28 Sep 2014, Russell Stuart wrote: > - pipefail, mksh has “set -o pipefail” and the PIPESTATUS array. > - local variables, mksh has them, of course. ksh93 only has them in functions declared with the “function” keyword, and lacks a default “alias local=typeset” to make it useful.

Re: bash exorcism experiment ('bug' 762923 & 763012)

On Mon, 2014-09-29 at 08:03 +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote: > Russell Stuart: > > > > > > - array variables. > > > > No workaround for this one? Pity. This is what usually prevents > > conversion. > > Well, you could use $ary_len to remember the length of the array, > "$(eval "echo \"\$

Re: bash exorcism experiment ('bug' 762923 & 763012)

Hi, Russell Stuart: > > > > - array variables. > > No workaround for this one? Pity. This is what usually prevents > conversion. Well, you could use $ary_len to remember the length of the array, "$(eval "echo \"\$ary_$pos\"")" for retrieving values, and val="some random valu

Re: bash exorcism experiment ('bug' 762923 & 763012)

On Sun, 2014-09-28 at 16:47 +0200, Guillem Jover wrote: > > I've attempted to port the many shell scripts I've written over the > > years to dash. The three irritants are: > > > > - pipefail, > > . That's one of those "scratch my eyes out" solut

Re: bash exorcism experiment ('bug' 762923 & 763012)

On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 06:02:09PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote: > On Sep 28, Guillem Jover wrote: > > > > - pipefail, > > . > Very practical. > There *is* a reason if we don't write all of our programs in C. And if you do then there is pipeline_wai

Re: bash exorcism experiment ('bug' 762923 & 763012)

On Sep 28, Guillem Jover wrote: > > - pipefail, > . Very practical. There *is* a reason if we don't write all of our programs in C. -- ciao, Marco signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: bash exorcism experiment ('bug' 762923 & 763012)

Hi! On Sun, 2014-09-28 at 18:39:50 +1000, Russell Stuart wrote: > On Sun, 2014-09-28 at 09:33 +0100, Colin Watson wrote: > > On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 09:11:44PM -0500, Troy Benjegerdes wrote: > > > Does update-menus really need bash? Why? > > > > pipefail is actually a fairly useful bashism. > >

Re: bash exorcism experiment ('bug' 762923 & 763012)

> - pipefail, > - local variables, > - array variables. > > If dash had those features Please don't -- some of us appreciate the fact that /bin/sh is a reasonably minimal shell. Both ksh93 and pdksh/mksh have all three of those, if memory serves. -- Juliusz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian

Re: bash exorcism experiment ('bug' 762923 & 763012)

On Sun, 2014-09-28 at 09:33 +0100, Colin Watson wrote: > On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 09:11:44PM -0500, Troy Benjegerdes wrote: > > Does update-menus really need bash? Why? > > pipefail is actually a fairly useful bashism. I've attempted to port the many shell scripts I've written over the years to da

Re: bash exorcism experiment ('bug' 762923 & 763012)

On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 09:11:44PM -0500, Troy Benjegerdes wrote: > Does update-menus really need bash? Why? pipefail is actually a fairly useful bashism. -- Colin Watson [cjwat...@debian.org] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.

Re: bash exorcism experiment ('bug' 762923 & 763012)

On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 08:42:57PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > Hi, > > On Sat, 27 Sep 2014, Guillem Jover wrote: > > > In the case of bash, dpkg can (and does!) use bash explicitly (i.e., > > > without going through /bin/sh), so removing bash will pretty much nuke > > > your system. > > > > H

Re: bash exorcism experiment ('bug' 762923 & 763012)

Hi, On Sat, 27 Sep 2014, Guillem Jover wrote: > > In the case of bash, dpkg can (and does!) use bash explicitly (i.e., > > without going through /bin/sh), so removing bash will pretty much nuke > > your system. > > Hmm, where? Wouter has been too quick, it's not dpkg. The output shown by Troy po

Re: bash exorcism experiment ('bug' 762923 & 763012)

Hi! On Sat, 2014-09-27 at 18:30:17 +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 10:32:18AM -0500, Troy Benjegerdes wrote: > > So far, I need to do the following to remove bash (and associated risk of > > 0-days until something sane is done about functions) > > That is not supported, so

Re: bash exorcism experiment ('bug' 762923 & 763012)

Hi Troy, On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 10:32:18AM -0500, Troy Benjegerdes wrote: > So far, I need to do the following to remove bash (and associated risk of > 0-days until something sane is done about functions) That is not supported, sorry. Bash is in the "essential" set, which means that packages can

bash exorcism experiment ('bug' 762923 & 763012)

So far, I need to do the following to remove bash (and associated risk of 0-days until something sane is done about functions) So far everything I've tested on one desktop and one server is fine. What reasonable ways might there be to support changes to a few packages to run wheezy without bash,