This may be some 'cockpit error', but this is what I'm seeing right
now and AFAICT, bash is broken.
I have this statement:
next line is line #300
have_dep -v base_mp_diff base_vg osnap_lv osnap_vg && {
nextents="$(get_nextents_for_space_on_vg_w_minfree \
On 09.08.2011 15:50, Steven W. Orr wrote:
On 8/9/2011 5:29 AM, Bernd Eggink wrote:
On 09.08.2011 03:44, Jon Seymour wrote:
Has anyone ever come across an equivalent to Linux's readlink -f
that is implemented purely in bash?
You can find my version here:
http://sudrala.de/en_d/shell-getlink.h
Hiya,
not sure who to report that to, but it looks like the usenet to
mailing-list gateway at least for gnu.bash.bug is not working
properly. That is, messages posted to the newsgroup are not
sent to the corresponding mailing list.
Compare for instance
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.shells.ba
On Tue, Aug 09, 2011 at 05:47:09PM -0700, Linda Walsh wrote:
> Bob Proulx wrote:
> >This may be a good point to mention this reference:
> >
> > http://www.pixelbeat.org/programming/stdio_buffering/
> Does it only work with gnu programs? I.e. how would they know to
> not buffer
Sou
Greg Wooledge wrote:
> Linda Walsh wrote:
> > Bob Proulx wrote:
> > >This may be a good point to mention this reference:
> > >
> > > http://www.pixelbeat.org/programming/stdio_buffering/
>
> > Does it only work with gnu programs? I.e. how would they know to
> > not buffer
>
> Sounds l
On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 10:07:20AM -0600, Bob Proulx wrote:
> The unbuffer expect script sets up a tty around the called program so
> that instead of a pipe the program detects a tty.
> The stdbuf utility works by setting up an LD_PRELOAD library
> libstdbuf.so that replaces the libc calls and int
Or maybe I'm not groking. When one compares against a b0rk symlink, the
result of -nt (newer than) is true--when it isn't!
mkdir directory
ln -s noexist symlink
touch -hr directory symlink
test directory -nt symlink &&echo yes ||echo no
They have identical mtimes (as set by touch)--i.e
On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 11:53:52AM -0700, Curtis Doty wrote:
> touch -hr directory symlink
touch: illegal option -- h
Hmm, what is that? Let's check a GNU/Linux box:
-h, --no-dereference
affect each symbolic link instead of any referenced file (useful
only o
> * Curtis Doty [2011-08-10 11:53:52 -0700]:
>
> They have identical mtimes (as set by touch)--i.e. the directory is
> *not* newer than the symlink--but it still outputs "yes". Why?
mtime for a symlink comes from stat(), not stat().
anything is newer than a non-existent object.
--
Sam Steingold
On 8/10/11 2:53 PM, Curtis Doty wrote:
> Or maybe I'm not groking. When one compares against a b0rk symlink, the
> result of -nt (newer than) is true--when it isn't!
>
> mkdir directory
> ln -s noexist symlink
> touch -hr directory symlink
>
> test directory -nt symlink &&echo yes ||echo
On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 03:25:49PM -0400, Chet Ramey wrote:
> The man page says:
> file1 -nt file2
> True if file1 is newer (according to modification date) than
> file2, or if file1 exists and file2 does not.
Ah. The "help test" page is shorter:
FILE1 -nt FILE2 True if f
Chet Ramey wrote:
Yes. It's a case of not saving and restoring enough state across
possibly-
recursive calls to the shell parser. (The assignment statement is the
key
in this case.)
> So, I compared subst.c files from bash-4.1-9 and bash-4.2-10 and was
> able
> to build a patch that it
On 08/10/2011 03:59 PM, Linda Walsh wrote:
Is this a fluke, due to the above changes NOT being 4.1? Or is this
construction going to break in 4.2:
'$((( )))'
According to POSIX, this construction should be parsed as an arithmetic
substitution $(()) where the expression is (expr), if at all p
Brace expansion using incrementers sometimes produces unexpected results with
regard to padding.
Note the following 4 examples not using incrementers:
bash> echo {0..9}
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
bash> echo {00..9}
00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09
bash> echo {0..09}
00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09
bash> ech
When I have the construct, in 4.1:
1 #!/bin/bash
2
30
31 # trace control for subs
32 declare -ix Allow_Trace=$(((
33 _D_LowLevel |
34 _D_Provides |
35 _D_
36 )))
37
38 declare -ix Trace_off
not sure who to report that to
I've asked the FSF sysadmins. I can see from the mailing list
configuration that the gateway is intended to be operational, but don't
know how to debug what it happening from there.
Best,
Karl
On 8/10/11 5:59 PM, Linda Walsh wrote:
>
> Chet Ramey wrote:
>>
>> Yes. It's a case of not saving and restoring enough state across
>> possibly-
>> recursive calls to the shell parser. (The assignment statement is the
>> key
>> in this case.)
>>
>> > So, I compared subst.c files from bash-4
On 8/10/11 6:23 PM, Linda W wrote:
>
>
> When I have the construct, in 4.1:
>
>
> 1 #!/bin/bash
> 2 30 31 # trace control for subs
> 32 declare -ix Allow_Trace=$(((
> 33 _D_LowLevel |
> 34 _D_Provides |
> 35 _D_ 36
On 8/10/11 4:43 PM, gregry . wrote:
> bash> echo {0..9..2}
> 0 2 4 6 8
> bash> echo {00..9..2}
> 00 02 04 06 08
> bash> echo {0..09..2}
> 0 2 4 6 8
> bash> echo {00..09..2}
> 0 2 4 6 8
>
> The first two are as expected, but the last two have unexpected addi
Eric Blake wrote:
On 08/10/2011 03:59 PM, Linda Walsh wrote:
Is this a fluke, due to the above changes NOT being 4.1? Or is this
construction going to break in 4.2:
'$((( )))'
According to POSIX, this construction should be parsed as an arithmetic
substitution $(()) where the expression is
Chet Ramey wrote:
Is this a fluke, due to the above changes NOT being 4.1? Or is
this construction going to break in 4.2:
'$((( )))'
What does `break' mean? It's already written in a manner more
confusing and obscure than necessary. What value do you think the
extra set of p
>
> I thought the $( ) was necessary to make the inner (()) an arithmetic
> expression... Does it execute in a sub process?
>
No, $( ) is for process substitution, $(( )) is for an arithmetic context.
I normally (in Bash), use (( )) outside the whole expression since it
gives me complete freedom
On 8/10/11 8:57 PM, Linda Walsh wrote:
> Chet Ramey wrote:
>
>>>
>>>
>>>Is this a fluke, due to the above changes NOT being 4.1? Or is
>>>this construction going to break in 4.2:
>>>
>>>'$((( )))'
>>
>> What does `break' mean? It's already written in a manner more
>> confusing a
On 8/10/11 8:44 PM, Linda Walsh wrote:
>
> It sounded to me like $(( )) would be translated into "$( () )",
> turning off arithmetic expansion. Did I read that incorrectly?
Yes. You missed the content of the resolution and changed language
in the standard:
"The syn
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 5:59 AM, Linda Walsh wrote:
>
> Bash is becoming very unstable -- programs that work in 3.1 won't
> necessarily work in 3.2, those in 3.2 aren't compat with 4.0, 4.0 is
> different than 4.1, and now 4.2 is different than 4.1.
>
> How can people write stable scripts in an e
Chet Ramey wrote:
> If not, then wouldn't
> $((( ))) be turned into $( (( )) ), meaning the arith returns a
> status,
> and not the calculation. (I've tested this, and this is the case.
This is demonstrably false.
---
No... you've only proven that you should have a bit of 'compassion'
for
On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 6:00 PM, Bernd Eggink wrote:
> On 09.08.2011 15:50, Steven W. Orr wrote:
>
> *) You reset OPTIND to 1 but you didn't declare it local. This will
>> cause any caller of getlink which uses getopts to reset its variable
>> to 1. (I mention this because it cost me a couple of
27 matches
Mail list logo
