This is a "Doctor, it hurts when I do this" type thing.
The short answer is that alias substitution occurs very early, so when you type:
alias x='this and that'
x() { ... }
you are for all practical purposes, typing:
'this and that'() { ... }
At which point, anything can happen. I
(Followup to my previous post)
To answer my own question, I guess it is pretty obvious that the answer to "How
to
fix?" is "Install texinfo and re-run the make install", but it raises two
important
questions:
1) Why is the error ignored, making it almost impossible to determine that
I found the problem (I think). See below:
--- Cut Here ---
make[1]: Entering directory '/home/username/Build/bash-5.3-rc2/doc'
rm -f bashref.info
makeinfo --no-split -I../lib/readline/doc ./bashref.texi
make[1]: makeinfo: Command not found
Makefile:181: recipe for target 'bashref.info' failed
mak
I did: ./configure --prefix=$HOME/local/bash5
Then make and then make install (all of this is done as a non-root user).
It created the directory listed above and all the necessary subdirs, including
share/man/man1, but left that directory empty.
Shouldn't (at least) a copy of "bash.1" have been p
On Fri, Jun 13, 2025 at 07:08:21 -0600, Stan Marsh wrote:
> BTW, and only tangentially related, "man bash" says that "let" and "(( ))" are
> exactly the same, but "shellcheck" thinks otherwise. "shellcheck" says you
> should
> use &qu
>All of this is intentional, and not a bug.
It is possible to be both.
But, yes, it reflects a fundamental inconsistency in the C/Unix ecosystem.
The fact that in most programming languages (e.g., C, AWK), 0 means false and
non-zero
means true, but in the shell, it is the opposite.
E.g., in AWK
>Description:
>The shorthands "++", "--", "+=1" and "-=1" in bash arithmetic
>erroneously return exit code 1 when a variable is either incremented by
>"++" or decremented by "--" from 0 or incremented by "+=1" or decremented
>by "-=1" from -1 and 1 respectively, although the variable valu
On Wed, Jun 11, 2025 at 10:38:17AM -0400, Chet Ramey wrote:
> The business of installing the loadables and
> headers on `make install' came later as the result of feature requests.
>
And Duncan, correctly, replied:
>Fine for `make install' to *install* them. But it flies in the face of
>convention
Somebody flitted:
> Nah
This is not an answer. This is just someone blowing off steam.
=
Please do not send me replies to my posts on the list.
I always read the replies via the web archive, so CC'ing to me is unnec
See below. As far as I can tell, it built OK.
Should I be concerned about the warning?
--- Cut Here ---
rm -f bash
gcc -std=gnu11 -L./builtins -L./lib/readline -L./lib/readline -L./lib/glob
-L./lib/tilde -L./lib/malloc -L./lib/sh -rdynamic -g -O2 -o bash shell.o
eval.o y.tab.o general.o make
>On Thu, Jun 5, 2025, at 8:37 AM, Stan Marsh wrote:
>> Actually, I am not too fond of the habit of having builtins (particularly
>> those supplied as part of the distribution) with the same name as well-known
>> Unix commands.
>
>It allows for potential drop-in replaceme
On Thu, Jun 5, 2025, 12:56â¯PM Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 05, 2025 at 12:34:44 +0200, microsuxx wrote:
> > i installed bash dev , but there is no `help cut`
>
> It's a "loadable builtin". You have to build those, install them,
> and then load the "cut" builtin explicitly.
It was far fro
I think most of what needs to be said about the technical aspects of this user's
question has been said. But I want to make a few suggestions for future
practice,
both for this mailing list and for the OP.
In the gawk-bug list (which is structured very much like this list), they have
a setup
wh
(This is all after doing "set -o vi")
In previous versions of bash, I could do the following keys: / ^ foo
and it would find the most recent command that starts with foo. This is all as
expected.
However, in bash 5.0 beta (self-compiled), this doesn't work. It always leaves
the
cursor line e
14 matches
Mail list logo
