Quoting "Chet Ramey" :
Which should not be affected by what we're talking about, which is not
importing PS4 from the environment when uid == 0.
He later said "(Blocking PS4 and not SHELLOPTS=xtrace would work for
me in that
regard)".
Still shows how useful xtrace is and how it is necessa
Dear All,
one thing I missed for some time now, is the ability to access the
argument passed to test, or any argument on the right hand side.
I needed it so I made a quick hack, which I attach as a reference.
It allows to access arg in the the -f $arg easily, e.g.:
[ -f /tmp/myfile ] && { echo
2015-12-16 16:03:14 +0100, Piotr Grzybowski:
> Dear All,
>
> one thing I missed for some time now, is the ability to access the
> argument passed to test, or any argument on the right hand side.
> I needed it so I made a quick hack, which I attach as a reference.
> It allows to access arg in th
On 12/16/15 10:03 AM, Piotr Grzybowski wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> one thing I missed for some time now, is the ability to access the
> argument passed to test, or any argument on the right hand side.
> I needed it so I made a quick hack, which I attach as a reference.
> It allows to access arg in t
For many years, my bash page (tiswww.case.edu/~chet/bash/bashtop.html) has
sported a bash logo that someone whose name I have lost donated long ago.
I received a very generous offer to create a new logo and donate it for
the project's use. The benefactor is Justin Dorfman, and he has been
very pa
On 12/15/15 12:04 PM, up201407...@alunos.dcc.fc.up.pt wrote:
> $ bash --version
> GNU bash, version 4.2.53(1)-release (x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu)
>
> Or did you just patch it, since you used "../bash-4.3-patched/bash ./x19" ?
No. bash-4.3-patched/bash is bash-4.3.42 (to distinguish it from bash-4
On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 11:03 PM, Piotr Grzybowski wrote:
> one thing I missed for some time now, is the ability to access the
> argument passed to test, or any argument on the right hand side.
> I needed it so I made a quick hack, which I attach as a reference.
> It allows to access arg in the
On Wed, 16 Dec 2015, Chet Ramey wrote:
For many years, my bash page (tiswww.case.edu/~chet/bash/bashtop.html) has
sported a bash logo that someone whose name I have lost donated long ago.
I received a very generous offer to create a new logo and donate it for
the project's use. The benefactor
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12/14/15 12:17 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>
> (1) the examples i already provided do not involve the user at all, and
> include systems where the user has no direct access to the shell.
You didn't really provide any examples. You mentioned Chr
FWIW (not much), I'm going to go with Chet on this. It may be my ignorance
speaking, but what can I do in a BASH shell script which I cannot do (at
all) just by entering the commands by hand?
On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 2:23 PM, Chet Ramey wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12/14/15 12:32 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On 13 Dec 2015 17:24, Chet Ramey wrote:
>> On 12/12/15 4:01 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>> Today, if you have a script that lives on a noexec mount point, the
>>> kernel will reject attempts to run it direct
On 12/16/15 3:29 PM, John McKown wrote:
> FWIW (not much), I'm going to go with Chet on this. It may be my ignorance
> speaking, but what can I do in a BASH shell script which I cannot do (at
> all) just by entering the commands by hand?
That's where the scope of the proposal makes a difference.
Hi Chet,
On 12/16/2015 11:21 PM, Chet Ramey wrote:
We have narrowed the field to three proposed designs, and it is time for
the bash community to decide on the winner.
Thanks for sharing and including the community to vote :)
There is a Google form with the proposed new logo designs where
On 12/16/15 2:51 PM, Ish Sookun wrote:
> The form allows multiple votes by the same person. Is that intentional?
Unless you require people to register and provide authentication, you
can't really prevent it.
>> Vote early and vote often! (Wait, that can't be right...)
>>
>
> Aargh! The "vote of
On 12/14/15 2:52 AM, Piotr Grzybowski wrote:
> Hey,
>
> we have had an off--list discussion with Kai on this (to shorten the
> 30 mails we exchanged ;-) I am writing this summary). He solved the
> issue by --without-bash-malloc which could indicate a bug or lack of
> proper support in lib/malloc/
On 12/15/15 4:53 AM, konsolebox wrote:
> Ok I accept your point. So it's actually about `source` and `bash
> file`, correct? So would this mean every script I `source` would need
> +x bit now? And if it's not about the +x bit and only about `noexec`,
> would stuff I place that I would want to n
16 matches
Mail list logo
