Re: bash should not alter PATH with 'command -p'

2015-06-04 Thread Chet Ramey
On 6/4/15 1:51 PM, Stephen Dowdy wrote: > $ PATH=/usr/sbin:/sbin:/usr/bin:/bin command -p env | grep ^PATH > PATH=/bin:/usr/bin > $ env | grep ^PATH > > PATH=/usr/sbin:/sbin:/opt/bin:/opt/sbin:/usr/local/jdk:/home/sdowdy/bin:/sbin:/usr/sbin:/usr/local/sbin:/usr/local/bin:/bin:/usr/

Re: VPATH build failure on cygwin

2015-06-04 Thread Eric Blake
On 06/04/2015 12:50 PM, Chet Ramey wrote: > On 6/2/15 9:10 AM, Eric Blake wrote: > >> That is, the use of .: in VPATH is redundant, and will NOT find any >> files that were not already found if you had omitted it, because make >> already searches the current directory before resorting to VPATH. >

Re: VPATH build failure on cygwin

2015-06-04 Thread Chet Ramey
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 6/2/15 9:10 AM, Eric Blake wrote: > That is, the use of .: in VPATH is redundant, and will NOT find any > files that were not already found if you had omitted it, because make > already searches the current directory before resorting to VPATH. > >

Re: bash should not alter PATH with 'command -p'

2015-06-04 Thread Stephen Dowdy
Chet, Ha, yeah, i just repeated the bug you mention where PATH=... command -p ... leaves the PATH set that way in the caller context. (oops!). Actually, in case it's relevant, i found a strange side-effect of that bug when a pipeline is involved (forgive my normal chaotic PATH) $ env | grep

Re: bash should not alter PATH with 'command -p'

2015-06-04 Thread Chet Ramey
> Thanks for the response! It's always fun trying to figure out what POSIX > means. I'm sure there's people who probably rely on the consequences of an > altered PATH, too, so i don't expect you can make anyone happy whatever > happens here. (I would guess that a "reasonable" compromise might be

Re: Change in behaviour between 4.2.53 and 4.3 series

2015-06-04 Thread Greg Wooledge
On Thu, Jun 04, 2015 at 03:25:13PM +1000, Dmitry Mikhin wrote: > 1. are our expectations for waiting for the entire process group > correct? If not, is this a bug in 4.3? That part, unfortunately, I don't know. > 2. if our expectations are wrong, what would be the recommended ways to > achieve

Change in behaviour between 4.2.53 and 4.3 series

2015-06-04 Thread Dmitry Mikhin
Hello everyone. Lately we experienced some strange termination issues in our system. The problem was traced down to bash "wait" not waiting for process groups. The original implementation has been done under bash 4.2 series, and apparently works there, but not under 4.3 variants that we tried