control: severity -1 normal Hi there!
On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 10:14:52PM +0530, Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote:
> This following code snippet looks incorrect. Please look the logs that
> follow. Can you please elaborate what the "hash" keyword is supposed to
> do ?
hash has to do with finding the path of a binary to execute.
from bash(1):
hash [-lr] [-p filename] [-dt] [name]
Each time hash is invoked, the full pathname of the command name
is determined by searching the directories in $PATH and remem‐
bered. Any previously-remembered pathname is discarded. If the
-p option is supplied, no path search is performed, and filename
is used as the full filename of the command. The -r option
causes the shell to forget all remembered locations. The -d
option causes the shell to forget the remembered location of each
name. If the -t option is supplied, the full pathname to which
each name corresponds is printed. If multiple name arguments are
supplied with -t, the name is printed before the hashed full
pathname. The -l option causes output to be displayed in a for‐
mat that may be reused as input. If no arguments are given, or
if only -l is supplied, information about remembered commands is
printed. The return status is true unless a name is not found or
an invalid option is supplied.
> if [ "$DEBDELTA" = "yes" ]; then
> if $CHROOTEXEC hash debdelta-upgrade 2> /dev/null ; then
I wonder why, given that I tested it, but indeed this has little chances
to work correctly: hash is a bash keyword, but bash is not called in
there.
can you please try to locally apply
--- a/pbuilder-updatebuildenv
+++ b/pbuilder-updatebuildenv
@@ -73,7 +73,7 @@ recover_aptcache
$TRAP saveaptcache_umountproc_cleanbuildplace_trap exit sighup
if [ "$DEBDELTA" = "yes" ]; then
- if $CHROOTEXEC hash debdelta-upgrade 2> /dev/null ; then
+ if $CHROOTEXEC bash -c "hash debdelta-upgrade 2> /dev/null" ; then
log.i "Using debdelta-upgrade for available deltas"
if $CHROOTEXEC debdelta-upgrade ; then
:
> As yoou can see debdelta is installed and available. But, with the
> current code, it does not work.
And yet, I've tested it.. maybe i changed that after the testing, I
don't remember honestly...
--
regards,
Mattia Rizzolo
GPG Key: 66AE 2B4A FCCF 3F52 DA18 4D18 4B04 3FCD B944 4540 .''`.
more about me: http://mapreri.org : :' :
Launchpad user: https://launchpad.net/~mapreri `. `'`
Debian QA page: https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=mattia `-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
