This is the mail archive of the
glibc-bugs@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
[Bug localedata/15831] Bad $expect passed from tst-fmon.sh to tst-fmon
- From: "joseph at codesourcery dot com" <sourceware-bugzilla at sourceware dot org>
- To: glibc-bugs at sourceware dot org
- Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2013 20:47:51 +0000
- Subject: [Bug localedata/15831] Bad $expect passed from tst-fmon.sh to tst-fmon
- Auto-submitted: auto-generated
- References: <bug-15831-131 at http dot sourceware dot org/bugzilla/>
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15831
--- Comment #4 from joseph at codesourcery dot com <joseph at codesourcery dot com> ---
On Wed, 14 Aug 2013, carlos at redhat dot com wrote:
> There are patches outstanding to glibc to allow it to build with a POSIX shell
> and not require bash-specific extensions.
>
> I suggest looking through back months in libc-alpha, finding the patches that
> were posted and adding them to the `Pending Reviews' list so we don't loose
> track of them and get around to reviewing them:
> http://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/Pending%20Reviews
>
> Note, you need to be in EditorGroup to edit the wiki:
> http://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/EditorGroup
>
> This would go a long way to fixing this problem.
>
> At present we only support /bin/bash, thus closing as RESOLVED/INVALID.
I don't believe your answer justifies closing this bug, or is in any way
relevant to this bug. Such patches as there are are about making
installed bash scripts such as ldd into installed POSIX shell scripts.
They are not about supporting building or testing glibc without bash
available for scripts that require bash. And they are not about cases
where scripts use /bin/sh but in fact require non-POSIX shell features -
such cases are all bugs, for which two fixes are possible in each case
(either explicitly require bash for the script, or make it work with the
POSIX shell).
This script (tst-fmon.sh) is an sh script. So, if it doesn't work with a
POSIX shell, that's a bug, not an enhancement request, and not invalid,
and should be fixed in one of those two ways.
Now, the analysis in this bug does not appear to disclose whether in fact
the script is doing anything non-POSIX, or whether the problem comes from
a dash bug where dash fails to follow POSIX requirements - if the latter,
the bug would indeed be invalid. But such an analysis of whether the
differences between bash and dash reflect a dash bug or the script
requiring something beyond POSIX is needed before the bug can be
considered invalid.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.