Re: [LTP] [TEST] : LTP Build failure on 2.6.24 kernel - Kernel

This is a discussion on Re: [LTP] [TEST] : LTP Build failure on 2.6.24 kernel - Kernel ; On Monday 28 January 2008, Rishikesh K. Rajak wrote: > Here i am getting failure on the x86_64 machine with new kernel. > > Here is the uname for that machine: > > rishi@:~/ltp-full-20071231# uname -a > Linux rishi.in.ibm.com 2.6.24 ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Re: [LTP] [TEST] : LTP Build failure on 2.6.24 kernel

  1. Re: [LTP] [TEST] : LTP Build failure on 2.6.24 kernel

    On Monday 28 January 2008, Rishikesh K. Rajak wrote:
    > Here i am getting failure on the x86_64 machine with new kernel.
    >
    > Here is the uname for that machine:
    >
    > rishi@:~/ltp-full-20071231# uname -a
    > Linux rishi.in.ibm.com 2.6.24 #1 SMP PREEMPT Mon Jan 28 06:47:28 UTC
    > 2008 x86_64 GNU/Linux


    i'm guessing you're using ubuntu and thus dash is your /bin/sh ... shouldntbe
    a 2.6.24 issue

    > make[4]: Entering directory
    > `/root/ltp-full-20071231/testcases/network/tcp_cmds/ftp'
    > ../../generate.sh
    > ../../generate.sh: 60: arith: syntax error: "cnt=cnt-1"


    sadly, this is becoming a FAQ. ubuntu ships a broken /bin/sh (dash) and thus
    some LTP scripts fall apart. i would prefer to not change the scripts as the
    message is simple in LTP: fix your shell, dont add hacks to LTP. otherwise
    we slowly back ourselves into this corner with the shell scripts where we try
    to support every craptastic shell out there and we're afraid to make any
    changes because we dont know what crappy shell is going to drop a brick. LTP
    scripts are written to be POSIX complaint and only POSIX complaint shells
    should be provided by /bin/sh.
    -mike

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v2.0.7 (GNU/Linux)

    iQIVAwUAR53CLEFjO5/oN/WBAQIB8BAAuPmtWbuoOYunY4Qgr5OdD7yhT8dtxT2X
    ycp56Zi7qDfGYp3QcHm1Mvt0OA1YFJ77R1Y4B3wBQUvJoUJRKS 1NLLlnTUp8jr9Q
    2Rv8Ef9cmgYScrr+7IB7XLMtefmGqwuoyMwCK0fxM7isvI+ewN FuVv4qmOyHVc9O
    w4e2rEA3TAwoxCFKtVCPGhF4FFh1FdYCuLftr8AhWPsqKW+fxT 8Fz5AZ/8dX41TX
    nV1RgZpbJbjVJbIQIIfEqLPVESb5QLND8A0xp6Cvjf72czAndz MsiPDKKZMXqWkR
    RU5vsmrYj0LSSGLxF+UHVQl70fH3COeUvf5gBU/NiCPOw2vllQ/m+Wn3PBxcTJJi
    Dq0DJCas8IEnfhZEvkzoyN2zWRcq/MkaoMNAUSX8/dS1akd3ZabS2lRImXNmfRrP
    XmMaB29kFVdqGI/3mAyGPBflX2SuHjMaXkvHSE2PbhkhGuwWo6R2mVCu/sQD/tIP
    0DeWpqEeu4NNUzMCJejHY/rr8fO6ehZoYsNZx/GJsiOTfgp6g6DeVm0IDxk3RQ4H
    3WbtYZkQQyiHIhHn7HDejEWXkT7zfxI8f5sTXjDCn2+JffDjee 4X3Twjlc9wbAdp
    sLEyXmKX5JPRlSsJQgeNcSBCPhL5WeH1y5bdiaZXYh4A+vk/YlV8wry1nZRHZjr7
    +TaoPsreyTw=
    =TtDb
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


  2. Re: [LTP] [TEST] : LTP Build failure on 2.6.24 kernel

    On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 06:53:15AM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
    > On Monday 28 January 2008, Rishikesh K. Rajak wrote:
    > > Here i am getting failure on the x86_64 machine with new kernel.
    > >
    > > Here is the uname for that machine:
    > >
    > > rishi@:~/ltp-full-20071231# uname -a
    > > Linux rishi.in.ibm.com 2.6.24 #1 SMP PREEMPT Mon Jan 28 06:47:28 UTC
    > > 2008 x86_64 GNU/Linux

    >
    > i'm guessing you're using ubuntu and thus dash is your /bin/sh ... shouldnt be
    > a 2.6.24 issue
    >
    > > make[4]: Entering directory
    > > `/root/ltp-full-20071231/testcases/network/tcp_cmds/ftp'
    > > ../../generate.sh
    > > ../../generate.sh: 60: arith: syntax error: "cnt=cnt-1"

    >
    > sadly, this is becoming a FAQ. ubuntu ships a broken /bin/sh (dash) and thus
    > some LTP scripts fall apart. i would prefer to not change the scripts as the
    > message is simple in LTP: fix your shell, dont add hacks to LTP. otherwise
    > we slowly back ourselves into this corner with the shell scripts where we try
    > to support every craptastic shell out there and we're afraid to make any
    > changes because we dont know what crappy shell is going to drop a brick. LTP
    > scripts are written to be POSIX complaint and only POSIX complaint shells
    > should be provided by /bin/sh.


    You better fulfil your claim "LTP scripts are written to be POSIX
    complaint" before complaining about shells being unhappy with your
    script. E.g. where in IEEE 1003.1-2004 is the "local" you use specified?

    Or instead of working on making your script using only the stuff
    specified in IEEE 1003.1-2004 you could simply replace the #!/bin/sh at
    the top with a #!/bin/bash and everbody will be happy.

    > -mike


    cu
    Adrian

    --

    "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
    of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
    "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
    Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

    --
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

  3. Re: [LTP] [TEST] : LTP Build failure on 2.6.24 kernel

    On Monday 28 January 2008, Adrian Bunk wrote:
    > On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 06:53:15AM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
    > > On Monday 28 January 2008, Rishikesh K. Rajak wrote:
    > > > Here i am getting failure on the x86_64 machine with new kernel.
    > > >
    > > > Here is the uname for that machine:
    > > >
    > > > rishi@:~/ltp-full-20071231# uname -a
    > > > Linux rishi.in.ibm.com 2.6.24 #1 SMP PREEMPT Mon Jan 28 06:47:28 UTC
    > > > 2008 x86_64 GNU/Linux

    > >
    > > i'm guessing you're using ubuntu and thus dash is your /bin/sh ...
    > > shouldnt be a 2.6.24 issue
    > >
    > > > make[4]: Entering directory
    > > > `/root/ltp-full-20071231/testcases/network/tcp_cmds/ftp'
    > > > ../../generate.sh
    > > > ../../generate.sh: 60: arith: syntax error: "cnt=cnt-1"

    > >
    > > sadly, this is becoming a FAQ. ubuntu ships a broken /bin/sh (dash) and
    > > thus some LTP scripts fall apart. i would prefer to not change the
    > > scripts as the message is simple in LTP: fix your shell, dont add hacks
    > > to LTP. otherwise we slowly back ourselves into this corner with the
    > > shell scripts where we try to support every craptastic shell out there
    > > and we're afraid to make any changes because we dont know what crappy
    > > shell is going to drop a brick. LTP scripts are written to be POSIX
    > > complaint and only POSIX complaint shells should be provided by /bin/sh.

    >
    > You better fulfil your claim "LTP scripts are written to be POSIX
    > complaint" before complaining about shells being unhappy with your
    > script. E.g. where in IEEE 1003.1-2004 is the "local" you use specified?


    yes, local is a bsd extension not in POSIX. it has been implemented by every
    shell so far though. as soon as someone complains, i'll be more than happy
    to fix it.

    > Or instead of working on making your script using only the stuff
    > specified in IEEE 1003.1-2004 you could simply replace the #!/bin/sh at
    > the top with a #!/bin/bash and everbody will be happy.


    no
    -mike

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v2.0.7 (GNU/Linux)

    iQIVAwUAR54+ZUFjO5/oN/WBAQJFoQ/9HVOR980jPQ0BA6UzW8/ctEH2XUGIMFpK
    aIuDR6uYcwooE888X/eXQoOCYK3N1ljwqWQ2pJ8cSKO9te6t8km30HWHh9oIGroQ
    Gh11gufUzeb1/2KsRFUi1TCiyYzXjjAkAgJmsJmd04fS4IfCU7NwAHAyEvWBQUO y
    DGFoO/keD4HRgvZlnaQVEfW2dQPvo2Mi2Uvx8RaKFDl+rbZRgnIvvJwb 1TfvpgtK
    pz1mNfAET+lOZ91B+270h2u8/xU0sD0bibuidzs9onVA1BJ+ubxASeIiUDWWVJXF
    CiWMDa5F/n77lJ+3CFwxPl0Xmp4n7+ZeUvc8vVdfscnpjazScGZmd5iETfz OloVZ
    7Hs/N2Y6TzeHWQLI9FksTP9PhFZGxLWVBPSZZ9hTEjb2nSL0pof8xO eeY2HwR38E
    wJehxkh/j6FBoXQnacy1l4ZBGg2KyVW8m8xVasTuOhuo7egRAOCwmxHQpp 0HRSml
    yp/J3I2UICJrWW9KQIwbYn3g3hc1VqIls7E+bd9lbGP7FI5AlHfqx xYUsrzNZhWu
    OJZeE5Z2OOmFDDkpuD535Hx0s9Dwj99jmtRNLHjpH4paqKQyR3 qgRc229QutRLrP
    RX8ok5TNOiW2Eiz3fw22oWMw3L1ik3t0w1MBdRMuftN6yA2e+z F9g+aDmOUGI5dO
    EUgg7MhLG84=
    =MlXW
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


  4. Re: [LTP] [TEST] : LTP Build failure on 2.6.24 kernel

    On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 03:43:16PM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
    > On Monday 28 January 2008, Adrian Bunk wrote:
    > > On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 06:53:15AM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
    > > > On Monday 28 January 2008, Rishikesh K. Rajak wrote:
    > > > > Here i am getting failure on the x86_64 machine with new kernel.
    > > > >
    > > > > Here is the uname for that machine:
    > > > >
    > > > > rishi@:~/ltp-full-20071231# uname -a
    > > > > Linux rishi.in.ibm.com 2.6.24 #1 SMP PREEMPT Mon Jan 28 06:47:28 UTC
    > > > > 2008 x86_64 GNU/Linux
    > > >
    > > > i'm guessing you're using ubuntu and thus dash is your /bin/sh ...
    > > > shouldnt be a 2.6.24 issue
    > > >
    > > > > make[4]: Entering directory
    > > > > `/root/ltp-full-20071231/testcases/network/tcp_cmds/ftp'
    > > > > ../../generate.sh
    > > > > ../../generate.sh: 60: arith: syntax error: "cnt=cnt-1"
    > > >
    > > > sadly, this is becoming a FAQ. ubuntu ships a broken /bin/sh (dash) and
    > > > thus some LTP scripts fall apart. i would prefer to not change the
    > > > scripts as the message is simple in LTP: fix your shell, dont add hacks
    > > > to LTP. otherwise we slowly back ourselves into this corner with the
    > > > shell scripts where we try to support every craptastic shell out there
    > > > and we're afraid to make any changes because we dont know what crappy
    > > > shell is going to drop a brick. LTP scripts are written to be POSIX
    > > > complaint and only POSIX complaint shells should be provided by /bin/sh.

    > >
    > > You better fulfil your claim "LTP scripts are written to be POSIX
    > > complaint" before complaining about shells being unhappy with your
    > > script. E.g. where in IEEE 1003.1-2004 is the "local" you use specified?

    >
    > yes, local is a bsd extension not in POSIX. it has been implemented by every
    > shell so far though. as soon as someone complains, i'll be more than happy
    > to fix it.


    David Korn's ksh93 (e.g. shipped in the Debian "ksh" package) disproves
    your claim "it has been implemented by every shell so far".

    > > Or instead of working on making your script using only the stuff
    > > specified in IEEE 1003.1-2004 you could simply replace the #!/bin/sh at
    > > the top with a #!/bin/bash and everbody will be happy.

    >
    > no
    > -mike


    cu
    Adrian

    --

    "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
    of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
    "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
    Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

    --
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

  5. Re: [LTP] [TEST] : LTP Build failure on 2.6.24 kernel

    On Monday 28 January 2008, Adrian Bunk wrote:
    > On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 03:43:16PM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
    > > On Monday 28 January 2008, Adrian Bunk wrote:
    > > > On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 06:53:15AM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
    > > > > On Monday 28 January 2008, Rishikesh K. Rajak wrote:
    > > > > > Here i am getting failure on the x86_64 machine with new kernel.
    > > > > >
    > > > > > Here is the uname for that machine:
    > > > > >
    > > > > > rishi@:~/ltp-full-20071231# uname -a
    > > > > > Linux rishi.in.ibm.com 2.6.24 #1 SMP PREEMPT Mon Jan 28 06:47:28
    > > > > > UTC 2008 x86_64 GNU/Linux
    > > > >
    > > > > i'm guessing you're using ubuntu and thus dash is your /bin/sh ...
    > > > > shouldnt be a 2.6.24 issue
    > > > >
    > > > > > make[4]: Entering directory
    > > > > > `/root/ltp-full-20071231/testcases/network/tcp_cmds/ftp'
    > > > > > ../../generate.sh
    > > > > > ../../generate.sh: 60: arith: syntax error: "cnt=cnt-1"
    > > > >
    > > > > sadly, this is becoming a FAQ. ubuntu ships a broken /bin/sh (dash)
    > > > > and thus some LTP scripts fall apart. i would prefer to not change
    > > > > the scripts as the message is simple in LTP: fix your shell, dont add
    > > > > hacks to LTP. otherwise we slowly back ourselves into this corner
    > > > > with the shell scripts where we try to support every craptastic shell
    > > > > out there and we're afraid to make any changes because we dont know
    > > > > what crappy shell is going to drop a brick. LTP scripts are written
    > > > > to be POSIX complaint and only POSIX complaint shells should be
    > > > > provided by /bin/sh.
    > > >
    > > > You better fulfil your claim "LTP scripts are written to be POSIX
    > > > complaint" before complaining about shells being unhappy with your
    > > > script. E.g. where in IEEE 1003.1-2004 is the "local" you use
    > > > specified?

    > >
    > > yes, local is a bsd extension not in POSIX. it has been implemented by
    > > every shell so far though. as soon as someone complains, i'll be more
    > > than happy to fix it.

    >
    > David Korn's ksh93 (e.g. shipped in the Debian "ksh" package) disproves
    > your claim "it has been implemented by every shell so far".


    sorry, i left out the operative word "relevant". i dont care what random
    shell fails unless people are actually utilizing it as their /bin/sh in any
    sort of useful context. as soon as someone complains for real and not just
    to be annoying, i'll address their complaint then.

    the issue that spawned this thread has been fixed in latest dash git tree, but
    no new release has been cut. Debian has grabbed said fixes, so go bug Ubuntu
    if they havent as well.
    -mike

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v2.0.7 (GNU/Linux)

    iQIVAwUAR55HPkFjO5/oN/WBAQJGZBAAuBBc9V5NytY7LWasBMyVkqaJd9K6Z5Ne
    V2GJSNDt935wLXqpBnR3/3MxP3tHiuFVYPO6M0OQ8Mqd5v5mva1gKC1/5RPqcj39
    lT9jhdf3/7nxTlRx5XHnzipsr2DU2ucqpDiHL2CFvpAheYvegXJdxC/EJYbuvThb
    MwkOGbaTf0QoUbuRxchCxUZp8ylQARGDWTic5m2HDGHe1NlwPj AZfzypF6eMIvKI
    YQZLHco1DQ4SbG+jYwr0SaAVbLUlDeEIZRDbPqwjrjgWYB0G5n kQXntQsJsPHeIX
    4WrIkQ6hWhlLczhXtYu5vNtlnGvocIRCrnfwHma+RRo0YgbQ7H sAE7qk1jtyOC2v
    vpoNaJmqz6InfU0GaZgPhHJor0k2VqN9lMkbdagbtLzEAA4nfz 9aNIbaCOwXXMnO
    5D8cBm7phdMosn8foswOe0nznl6+0zqk13SSuIJ5HBGKFzB0S5 MugYJ/dwWioI93
    g3HVuGHvgUUsSj1DudM6fBfDOo3qBYmEzwHjnbuM/a+hh7gv6kd8kfiX1MsxMSVj
    WN5JEzlERP5VgFnerYbSKmbpB9OY94xZGFDUB1/QvUZhRvw9bDQvD88SvEi34p9R
    gkZQs4u7PCpvCYT7PUTZC/kM2MbN6LybkIesZNoTSSe9b4OM0wEbxcIXyI6tySNE
    SwwEV9oQnBo=
    =egIg
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


  6. Re: [LTP] [TEST] : LTP Build failure on 2.6.24 kernel

    On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 04:21:01PM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
    > On Monday 28 January 2008, Adrian Bunk wrote:
    > > On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 03:43:16PM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
    > > > On Monday 28 January 2008, Adrian Bunk wrote:
    > > > > On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 06:53:15AM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
    > > > > > On Monday 28 January 2008, Rishikesh K. Rajak wrote:
    > > > > > > Here i am getting failure on the x86_64 machine with new kernel.
    > > > > > >
    > > > > > > Here is the uname for that machine:
    > > > > > >
    > > > > > > rishi@:~/ltp-full-20071231# uname -a
    > > > > > > Linux rishi.in.ibm.com 2.6.24 #1 SMP PREEMPT Mon Jan 28 06:47:28
    > > > > > > UTC 2008 x86_64 GNU/Linux
    > > > > >
    > > > > > i'm guessing you're using ubuntu and thus dash is your /bin/sh ...
    > > > > > shouldnt be a 2.6.24 issue
    > > > > >
    > > > > > > make[4]: Entering directory
    > > > > > > `/root/ltp-full-20071231/testcases/network/tcp_cmds/ftp'
    > > > > > > ../../generate.sh
    > > > > > > ../../generate.sh: 60: arith: syntax error: "cnt=cnt-1"
    > > > > >
    > > > > > sadly, this is becoming a FAQ. ubuntu ships a broken /bin/sh (dash)
    > > > > > and thus some LTP scripts fall apart. i would prefer to not change
    > > > > > the scripts as the message is simple in LTP: fix your shell, dont add
    > > > > > hacks to LTP. otherwise we slowly back ourselves into this corner
    > > > > > with the shell scripts where we try to support every craptastic shell
    > > > > > out there and we're afraid to make any changes because we dont know
    > > > > > what crappy shell is going to drop a brick. LTP scripts are written
    > > > > > to be POSIX complaint and only POSIX complaint shells should be
    > > > > > provided by /bin/sh.
    > > > >
    > > > > You better fulfil your claim "LTP scripts are written to be POSIX
    > > > > complaint" before complaining about shells being unhappy with your
    > > > > script. E.g. where in IEEE 1003.1-2004 is the "local" you use
    > > > > specified?
    > > >
    > > > yes, local is a bsd extension not in POSIX. it has been implemented by
    > > > every shell so far though. as soon as someone complains, i'll be more
    > > > than happy to fix it.

    > >
    > > David Korn's ksh93 (e.g. shipped in the Debian "ksh" package) disproves
    > > your claim "it has been implemented by every shell so far".

    >
    > sorry, i left out the operative word "relevant". i dont care what random
    > shell fails unless people are actually utilizing it as their /bin/sh in any
    > sort of useful context. as soon as someone complains for real and not just
    > to be annoying, i'll address their complaint then.
    >...


    You started with claiming "LTP scripts are written to be POSIX
    complaint" and now that I've shown you a not that uncommon IEEE POSIX
    1003.2 compliant shell that can't cope with your non-POSIX script you
    suddenly introduce the word "relevant".

    But when you care only about "relevant" shells you could simply
    implementing my suggestion of placing a #!/bin/bash at the top of your
    scripts instead of defining your own POSIX superset that you require
    from a /bin/sh for allowing a user to execute your script...

    > -mike


    cu
    Adrian

    --

    "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
    of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
    "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
    Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

    --
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

  7. Re: [LTP] [TEST] : LTP Build failure on 2.6.24 kernel

    On Monday 28 January 2008, Adrian Bunk wrote:
    > On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 04:21:01PM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
    > > On Monday 28 January 2008, Adrian Bunk wrote:
    > > > On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 03:43:16PM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
    > > > > On Monday 28 January 2008, Adrian Bunk wrote:
    > > > > > On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 06:53:15AM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
    > > > > > > On Monday 28 January 2008, Rishikesh K. Rajak wrote:
    > > > > > > > Here i am getting failure on the x86_64 machine with new
    > > > > > > > kernel.
    > > > > > > >
    > > > > > > > Here is the uname for that machine:
    > > > > > > >
    > > > > > > > rishi@:~/ltp-full-20071231# uname -a
    > > > > > > > Linux rishi.in.ibm.com 2.6.24 #1 SMP PREEMPT Mon Jan 28
    > > > > > > > 06:47:28 UTC 2008 x86_64 GNU/Linux
    > > > > > >
    > > > > > > i'm guessing you're using ubuntu and thus dash is your /bin/sh
    > > > > > > ... shouldnt be a 2.6.24 issue
    > > > > > >
    > > > > > > > make[4]: Entering directory
    > > > > > > > `/root/ltp-full-20071231/testcases/network/tcp_cmds/ftp'
    > > > > > > > ../../generate.sh
    > > > > > > > ../../generate.sh: 60: arith: syntax error: "cnt=cnt-1"
    > > > > > >
    > > > > > > sadly, this is becoming a FAQ. ubuntu ships a broken /bin/sh
    > > > > > > (dash) and thus some LTP scripts fall apart. i would prefer to
    > > > > > > not change the scripts as the message is simple in LTP: fix your
    > > > > > > shell, dont add hacks to LTP. otherwise we slowly back ourselves
    > > > > > > into this corner with the shell scripts where we try to support
    > > > > > > every craptastic shell out there and we're afraid to make any
    > > > > > > changes because we dont know what crappy shell is going to dropa
    > > > > > > brick. LTP scripts are written to be POSIX complaint and only
    > > > > > > POSIX complaint shells should be provided by /bin/sh.
    > > > > >
    > > > > > You better fulfil your claim "LTP scripts are written to be POSIX
    > > > > > complaint" before complaining about shells being unhappy with your
    > > > > > script. E.g. where in IEEE 1003.1-2004 is the "local" you use
    > > > > > specified?
    > > > >
    > > > > yes, local is a bsd extension not in POSIX. it has been implemented
    > > > > by every shell so far though. as soon as someone complains, i'll be
    > > > > more than happy to fix it.
    > > >
    > > > David Korn's ksh93 (e.g. shipped in the Debian "ksh" package) disproves
    > > > your claim "it has been implemented by every shell so far".

    > >
    > > sorry, i left out the operative word "relevant". i dont care what random
    > > shell fails unless people are actually utilizing it as their /bin/sh in
    > > any sort of useful context. as soon as someone complains for real and
    > > not just to be annoying, i'll address their complaint then.
    > >...

    >
    > You started with claiming "LTP scripts are written to be POSIX
    > complaint" and now that I've shown you a not that uncommon IEEE POSIX
    > 1003.2 compliant shell that can't cope with your non-POSIX script you
    > suddenly introduce the word "relevant".


    what's your point ? LTP scripts are POSIX compliant with a little extra that
    so far has worked fine for everyone actually running LTP. as soon as the
    little extra realistically becomes a problem, i'll rework things. you havent
    shown a realistic system. i'm willing to tweak things for real LTP users,
    not people being tools.

    > But when you care only about "relevant" shells you could simply
    > implementing my suggestion of placing a #!/bin/bash at the top of your
    > scripts instead of defining your own POSIX superset that you require
    > from a /bin/sh for allowing a user to execute your script...


    no. people run LTP on embedded systems w/out bash.
    -mike

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v2.0.7 (GNU/Linux)

    iQIVAwUAR55m+EFjO5/oN/WBAQIu2hAAgyHTslpnE6iBk9UqgOf5C4plqaj66HiM
    0e0UogqBaKfrf++fHfGpLHssPf0EqCdxvCDNsv8yxj7Rh6S6lr j9J2amVKT1nAy5
    2wbIRHOgEmsrGi/2LB2JgyC1EVWlMnMTiXYbfsGkjI8Aa3v4I1VsnBsiQrJbY2F2
    mSio3qjrzOgq0+ZixBhAgJuUseXrlZnyWf9Pj9p90xZT9GgytD RJk9NI5NzYO3Qw
    X6vh3w2RINtQhSv9NZAVpMBufoOunO+Rv4ZinrvCacYJsr5a7Z IzRm/bdCqNrJtA
    9vboOj9ATd0Zk+mrYaY85cxSkQKj104c/48yRTlJD2Bux33zRjgHXOX7jcYN2tjn
    6dLk+QbBN3iBlJoEWSi2Ederau5UtW0T6xWUQoxOC9wcAZkXTS I/dPIDjO+j94/J
    dPSuSjePKYQFXMOIv3sFEsloplQimD3Dkwwi3weP+YSSeVJbtk 2atcuWsY+saQuo
    E2SkUuTiPTNMti8KQ7FBqpbQnPc29nWU2cblz9o8lAdePZKhlB VKfu0O3II0MV30
    OF5JpkjS7dROqp5iZWJkUCQCrd89viaITZejDp/r/wJFzFiIf+jaGfmCloNos12w
    d+JKcIUAM5BkwR3xuBcBUDZOpBm+0N2TtgJITOwVJeCE6L+AEH t3zDZIP3IxAU3j
    KBJau8TKPw4=
    =NtNh
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


+ Reply to Thread