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: "carlos at redhat dot com" <sourceware-bugzilla at sourceware dot org>
- To: glibc-bugs at sourceware dot org
- Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 18:29:33 +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 #5 from Carlos O'Donell <carlos at redhat dot com> ---
(In reply to joseph@codesourcery.com from comment #4)
> 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).
If that's the case then I've misremembered the patches that have been posted.
> 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.
Good point.
> 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.
I have completed a review of tst-fmon.sh and I see nothing that is non-POSIX in
the shell. I've looked for common bash-isms (function, case, numeric loops,
expand sequences, extended glob, select, ==) and fond none. I also ran Debian's
checkbashisms perl script and it found no bash-isms in the script.
Therefore I'm leaving it closed as resolved/invalid and leaving it up to the
submitter to work out the dash bug.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.