On 15.08.2018 18:57, Izaac wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 10:47:16PM +, m...@netbsd.org wrote:
>> I for one strongly appreciate that:
>> - /bin/sh now has great test coverage
> Agreed.
>
>> - Said testsuite runs without a complaint from sanitizers
>> (all ~400 test cases!)
> ... agreed.
>
On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 08:29:29PM +, m...@netbsd.org wrote:
> You're complaining loudly at someone for changing code you believe is
> sacred.
Your ability to read minds and intentions across time and space is quite
a remarkable ability. You should do talk shows. But just in case you
weren't
You're complaining loudly at someone for changing code you believe is
sacred.
- We don't want to have any code in netbsd that is too sacred to touch.
- kre is ridiculously fucking nice.
- we really, really like kre.
It's like everyone has a score. You can do negative and positive things.
Positive
On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 08:43:37PM +, m...@netbsd.org wrote:
> By the time it reaches a release, a change to sh will likely undergo
> many months of testing by people who like to use shell scripts and build
> 16,000 packages all with very many shell scripts.
http://cvsweb.netbsd.org/bsdweb.cgi
On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 08:29:29PM +, m...@netbsd.org wrote:
> I would be defending him even if the criticism was about sh making my
> own system unbootable. And it isn't.
Keep in mind all these changes occur in -current. -current has random
breakage, it happens (and it usually doesn't come fr
On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 07:04:38PM +0200, Rhialto wrote:
> So stop right there. I have no desire to read your insulting diatribes.
> Nor, do I expect, have most others on this list.
You are, of course, welcome to consider my points as nothing more than
insults. You can stick your fingers in your
On Wed 15 Aug 2018 at 12:12:53 -0400, Izaac wrote:
> Yeah, I'm dragging a private conversation back onto the list. Is it
> poor etiquette? Sure.
So stop right there. I have no desire to read your insulting diatribes.
Nor, do I expect, have most others on this list.
*plonk*
-Olaf.
--
___ Olaf
On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 10:16:55AM +, Valery Ushakov wrote:
> If you want SCO Unix you know where to find it.
Cute. If you want Linux, you know where to find it.
--
. ___ ___ . . ___
. \/ |\ |\ \
. _\_ /__ |-\ |-\ \__
On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 10:47:16PM +, m...@netbsd.org wrote:
> I for one strongly appreciate that:
> - /bin/sh now has great test coverage
Agreed.
> - Said testsuite runs without a complaint from sanitizers
> (all ~400 test cases!)
... agreed.
> - I can now apply patches that were blocked
Yeah, I'm dragging a private conversation back onto the list. Is it
poor etiquette? Sure. But this is important. If left unchecked, we
are talking about a fundamental shift in the development doctrine of
this operating system.
On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 08:25:37AM +0700, Robert Elz wrote:
> Yes,
Izaac wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 09:01:26AM -0400, Izaac wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 07:46:39AM +0700, Robert Elz wrote:
>> > So, opinions?
>>
>> Stop.
>>
>> Leave /bin/sh alone.
>
> And here we are.
If you want SCO Unix you know where to find it.
-uwe
Date:Tue, 14 Aug 2018 20:52:49 +0100
From:David Brownlee
Message-ID:
| If you had any other comments on obvious things you noticed which
| could be transitioned from "technically works" to "correct" I would be
| all ears :-p
Another is that the test (aka '[')
On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 04:27:34PM -0400, Izaac wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 09:01:26AM -0400, Izaac wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 07:46:39AM +0700, Robert Elz wrote:
> > > So, opinions?
> >
> > Stop.
> >
> > Leave /bin/sh alone.
>
> And here we are.
I for one strongly appreciate that:
On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 09:01:26AM -0400, Izaac wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 07:46:39AM +0700, Robert Elz wrote:
> > So, opinions?
>
> Stop.
>
> Leave /bin/sh alone.
And here we are.
--
. ___ ___ . . ___
. \/ |\ |\ \
. _\_ /__ |-\ |-\ \__
On 14 August 2018 at 16:53, Robert Elz wrote:
>
>
> | You mean "need to be fixed in the script" or "need to be fixed in sh"?
>
> Fixed in the script. Not things which would stop it working, just stuff
> done the wrong way.
>
> Eg: somewhere in there I saw
> somevar="$@"
>
> "$@" only h
Date:Tue, 14 Aug 2018 16:40:52 +0200
From:Rhialto
Message-ID: <20180814144052.gd5...@falu.nl>
| On Mon 13 Aug 2018 at 07:09:41 +0700, Robert Elz wrote:
| > This patch ...
|
| indeed fixes the problem for me.
Actually it is incomplete. If you look a bit lowe
On Mon 13 Aug 2018 at 07:09:41 +0700, Robert Elz wrote:
> This patch ...
indeed fixes the problem for me.
> This is certainly not the right way to fix things, but as a quick fix to allow
> pkg_chk -av to work, it seems adequate (at least as much as I can test
> that, since I don't use pkg_chk and
Date:Sun, 12 Aug 2018 20:23:05 +0200
From:Rhialto
Message-ID: <20180812182305.gc5...@falu.nl>
| I tried commenting out some stuff related to the -v option, and if I do
| this, then it works:
| Maybe the redirection isn't reset in some cases?
That is exactly it
> (984) PKGDIRLIST="$(pkgdirs_from_conf $PKGCHK_CONF $PKGDIRLIST)"
>
> assigns an empty string to PKGDIRLIST...
> And then it has no work to do and proceeds to a regular exit.
I tried commenting out some stuff related to the -v option, and if I do
this, then it works:
verbose()
{
On Sat 11 Aug 2018 at 23:22:07 +0200, Edgar Fuß wrote:
> > It just stops after printing the package list:
> 1. What's the exit code?
> 2. If you run it with sh -x, do you see where it exits?
It exits as usual, but it has no work to do any more.
cvs/pkgsrc$ sh -x pkg_chk -vak
...
+ echo pkgtools
> It just stops after printing the package list:
1. What's the exit code?
2. If you run it with sh -x, do you see where it exits?
21 matches
Mail list logo
