On Mon, 2021-11-15 at 09:23 -0500, Chet Ramey wrote:
> On 11/12/21 4:36 AM, Mischa Baars wrote:
>
> > Could you please restore the Fedora 32 behaviour? Someone must have read
> > the bash manual a little too precise, because now the statement only
> > returns true when a 'touch -a test' is given a
On Fri, 2021-11-12 at 19:48 +0100, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> FILE1 -nt FILE2 True if file1 is newer than file2 (according to
>modification date).
>
> Andreas.
>
This would indeed also solve the problem at hand :)
On Nov 17 2021, Michael J. Baars wrote:
> When -N stands for NEW, and touch (-am) gives you a new file
It doesn't. The file hasn't been modified after it was last read.
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab, sch...@linux-m68k.org
GPG Key fingerprint = 7578 EB47 D4E5 4D69 2510 2552 DF73 E780 A9DA AEC1
"
On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 1:33 PM Andreas Schwab
wrote:
> On Nov 17 2021, Michael J. Baars wrote:
>
> > When -N stands for NEW, and touch (-am) gives you a new file
>
> It doesn't. The file hasn't been modified after it was last read.
>
touch creates the given file if it doesn't previously exist.
Software: bash
Version: 5.0.17(1)-release (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
--- SNIP ---
[marshall@jerkon]{04:09 AM}: [~/bashful] $ touch -- '--version'
[marshall@jerkon]{04:09 AM}: [~/bashful] $ touch a && mkdir b
[marshall@jerkon]{04:09 AM}: [~/bashful] $ ls -l
total 4
-rw-rw-r-- 1 marshall marshall0 No
On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 04:16:36AM -0500, Marshall Whittaker wrote:
> --- SNIP ---
> [marshall@jerkon]{04:09 AM}: [~/bashful] $ touch -- '--version'
> [marshall@jerkon]{04:09 AM}: [~/bashful] $ mv * b
This isn't a vulnerability in bash. It's a bug in your script.
Use this instead: mv -- * b
Software: bash
Version: 5.0.17(1)-release
--- SNIP ---
[marshall@jerkon]{04:09 AM}: [~/bashful] $ touch -- '--version'
[marshall@jerkon]{04:09 AM}: [~/bashful] $ touch a && mkdir b
[marshall@jerkon]{04:09 AM}: [~/bashful] $ ls -l
total 4
-rw-rw-r-- 1 marshall marshall0 Nov 17 04:09 a
drwxrwxr-x
this is due to parsing of args by specific app, -- arg indicates
end-of-switches
On Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 13:41 Marshall Whittaker
wrote:
> Software: bash
> Version: 5.0.17(1)-release (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
>
> --- SNIP ---
> [marshall@jerkon]{04:09 AM}: [~/bashful] $ touch -- '--version'
> [marshal
On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 2:42 PM Marshall Whittaker <
marshallwhitta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [marshall@jerkon]{04:09 AM}: [~/bashful] $ touch -- '--version'
> [marshall@jerkon]{04:09 AM}: [~/bashful] $ rm *
> rm (GNU coreutils) 8.30
> Copyright (C) 2018 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
> License GPLv3
On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 03:47:15PM +0200, Ilkka Virta wrote:
> I don't see this in BashFAQ, though. Is it because it's not strictly about
> Bash? Greg?
https://mywiki.wooledge.org/BashPitfalls#pf3
On 11/17/21 4:16 AM, Marshall Whittaker wrote:
> This shouldn't happen beacuse you can drop a file and then redirect
> other code for example calling a script if you only have access to drop
> a file. Say a cronjob was running every hour, and it did rm * on some
> folder, by expansion, you could
On 11/17/21 5:16 AM, Michael J. Baars wrote:
>> Why do you think `touch -am', which sets the atime and mtime to the same
>> value, should make -N true?
>
> When -N stands for NEW
It doesn't, though. It could just as easily be a mnemonic for "new activity
in the file." You're using it to mean `ne
Hello,
First of all thank you for doing great (and free) software!
I’m a programming student currently on 42 School in Lisbon, and one of our
projects is to create a minishell, and to mimic the behavior of bash.
While testing the heredoc mode, I realized that the $ is not interpreted as
variabl
On Wed, Nov 17, 2021, at 7:35 AM, João Almeida Santos wrote:
> I’m a programming student currently on 42 School in Lisbon, and one of
> our projects is to create a minishell, and to mimic the behavior of
> bash.
Nice!
> While testing the heredoc mode, I realized that the $ is not
> interpreted
Date:Wed, 17 Nov 2021 12:35:42 +
From:=?utf-8?Q?Jo=C3=A3o_Almeida_Santos?=
Message-ID:
| While testing the heredoc mode, I realized that the $ is not
| interpreted as variable expansion.
It depends how you set up the heredoc, please give an example of
what
Thank you for your reply Robert and Lawrence!
I understand the description alone is hard to follow, so I think the image
below should make it clearer. Otherwise let me know!
Kind regards,
João Almeida Santos
u forgot to attach the picture .. ?
On Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 19:31 João Almeida Santos
wrote:
> Thank you for your reply Robert and Lawrence!
>
> I understand the description alone is hard to follow, so I think the image
> below should make it clearer. Otherwise let me know!
>
>
> Kind regards,
> J
On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 06:30:08PM +, João Almeida Santos wrote:
> Thank you for your reply Robert and Lawrence!
>
> I understand the description alone is hard to follow, so I think the image
> below should make it clearer. Otherwise let me know!
>
>
> Kind regards,
> João Almeida Santos
N
No, it’s on the email...Anyway, here’s the text!
bash-5.1$ echo $PATH
/usr/bin:/bin:/usr/sbin:/sbin:/usr/local/bin/:/usr/local/bin/:/usr/local/bin/
bash-5.1$ cat << $PATH
> /usr/bin:/bin:/usr/sbin:/sbin:/usr/local/bin/:/usr/local/bin/:/usr/local/bin/
> it should have terminated with the upper del
On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 06:45:05PM +, João Almeida Santos wrote:
> bash-5.1$ cat << $PATH
That's not how a here-document is intended to be used. A here-document
lets you drop a blob of text directly into your script and use that as
standard input for some command, without needing to store the
Date:Wed, 17 Nov 2021 18:45:05 +
From:=?utf-8?Q?Jo=C3=A3o_Almeida_Santos?=
Message-ID:
| No, it's on the email...
It wasn't, but some lists filter attachments (remove them) - this might be one.
| bash-5.1$ echo $PATH
|
/usr/bin:/bin:/usr/sbin:/sbin:/us
On 11/17/21 1:45 PM, João Almeida Santos wrote:
> No, it’s on the email...Anyway, here’s the text!
>
> bash-5.1$ echo $PATH
> /usr/bin:/bin:/usr/sbin:/sbin:/usr/local/bin/:/usr/local/bin/:/usr/local/bin/
>
> bash-5.1$ cat << $PATH
>> /usr/bin:/bin:/usr/sbin:/sbin:/usr/local/bin/:/usr/local/bin/:/
On 11/17/21 10:33 AM, Robert Elz wrote:
> There are several (IMO)
> bugs in the way bash processes here documents,
Such as?
--
``The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.'' - Chaucer
``Ars longa, vita brevis'' - Hippocrates
Chet Ramey, UTech, CWRUc...@case.eduhttp
Ok, got it. It makes sense now!
Thank you very much for your detailed explanation guys; now that I understand
it, I’ll try to implement that on my mini shell.
It’s a bit too soon, but merry Christmas to you all!
Kind regards,
João Almeida Santos
On 11/17/21 3:02 PM, Robert Elz wrote:
> | bash-5.1$ cat << $PATH
>
>
> | it should have terminated with the upper delimiter!
>
> What do you consider the "upper delimiter" ?
>
> This is one of the weirder aspects of shell syntax, and perhaps one
> of bash's oddities.
It's not. Every mode
Date:Wed, 17 Nov 2021 15:47:37 -0500
From:Chet Ramey
Message-ID: <420281e7-f3c4-8054-d390-9378080c2...@case.edu>
| Every modern shell uses `$PATH' as the here-document delimiter
Depends what you call modern shells - some ash derived shells (at least)
don't, because
BASH PATCH REPORT
=
Bash-Release: 5.1
Patch-ID: bash51-009
Bug-Reported-by:Julien Moutinho
Bug-Reference-ID: <20211004035906.5kiobuzkpeckm...@sourcephile.fr>
Bug-Reference-URL:
https://lists.gnu
BASH PATCH REPORT
=
Bash-Release: 5.1
Patch-ID: bash51-010
Bug-Reported-by:Jonas Alfredsson
Bug-Reference-ID:
Bug-Reference-URL:
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-bash/2021-05/msg00059.ht
BASH PATCH REPORT
=
Bash-Release: 5.1
Patch-ID: bash51-011
Bug-Reported-by:Alex fxmbsw7 Ratchev
Bug-Reference-ID:
Bug-Reference-URL:
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-bash/2020-11/msg0006
BASH PATCH REPORT
=
Bash-Release: 5.1
Patch-ID: bash51-012
Bug-Reported-by:Nikolay Borisov
Bug-Reference-ID: <1a715205-06ce-413b-c1c0-2f5639ce0...@suse.com>
Bug-Reference-URL:
https://lists.gnu.
On Wed, 2021-11-17 at 14:06 +0200, Ilkka Virta wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 1:33 PM Andreas Schwab wrote:
> > On Nov 17 2021, Michael J. Baars wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > When -N stands for NEW, and touch (-am) gives you a new file
> >
> >
> >
> > It doesn't. The file hasn't been modified
On Fri, 2021-11-12 at 19:48 +0100, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> FILE1 -nt FILE2 True if file1 is newer than file2 (according to
>modification date).
>
> Andreas.
>
So now we have a relation for 'older than' and for 'newer than', but how about
'oldest' (executable), and
32 matches
Mail list logo
