It works some times, but not others. Enclosed are scripts of two
trials, one where it functions, from within an XEmacs buffer, and
another where it fails, from an XTerm shell.
The status display comes from a $PROMPT_COMMAND that prints any
non-zero $? before it prints the next prompt.
*** The
This works every time, with no fails due to '-o errexit'.
#!/bin/sh
#
# Register a binary
#
function setperm()
{
if [ -e $2 ]; then
chown $3.$4 $2
chmod $5 $2
fi
}
function compperm()
{
if [ $1 != $4 -o $2 != $5 -o $3 != $6 ]; then
Could you please give me a simple script that produces the error that you
have been talking about so long? I have not been able to produce a single
instance of the problem you are mentioning. Get emacs and all other
complicating circumstances out of it.
Just tell me how to produce the problem and
> "Christoph" == Christoph Lameter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Christoph> Could you please give me a simple script that produces
Christoph> the error that you have been talking about so long? I
Christoph> have not been able to produce a single instance of the
Christoph> problem
I have tested your scripts and everything works just as it should.
Check your system for anything special you might have done.
work:~$ ./script1
This is ./script1
The value of $- is 'hB'
This is ./script2
The value of $- is 'hB'
If the grep fails, this will never echo.
work:~$ cat script1
#!/bi
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Manoj Srivastava) wrote on 16.05.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >>"Jim" == Jim Van Zandt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Jim>> I think the ".. pathname component" problem deserves some
Jim>> attention. What does anybody think about these steps?
Jim>> 1) Incoming Debian source packa
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
|'Amos Shapira wrote:'
|>
|>I was asking over Linux-ISP about doing cleanup after breakins and got
|>many "use tripwire" answers, and one which says that RPM has a verify
|>mode which checks for files which were changed since they were
|>installed. Can the
> "Christoph" == Christoph Lameter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Christoph> I have tested your scripts and everything works just as
Christoph> it should. Check your system for anything special you
Christoph> might have done.
The special thing was to have upgraded to Bash-2.0. I j
I only run bash 2.0 on my systems at home.
On Sat, 17 May 1997, Karl M. Hegbloom wrote:
>> "Christoph" == Christoph Lameter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>Christoph> I have tested your scripts and everything works just as
>Christoph> it should. Check your system for anything special
Hi Christian,
> I looked at the dump package and found out that /sbin/dump and
> /sbin/restore are in the group tty. Why are they in tty, shouldn't it
> be disk ?
No. dump/restore wants to be in tty in order to be able to notify the
operator that (s)he has to change tapes.
The operator has to ha
"Karl M. Hegbloom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The special thing was to have upgraded to Bash-2.0. I just
> downgraded to 1.14.7, and the scripts run now. I think we should
> report this as a Bash bug.
Check to see if you have a "set -a" (or +a) anywhere in your bashrc,
or related bash setup
On 17 May 1997, Kai Henningsen wrote:
> (Have you _ever_ seen a tar containing a path with ".."? Those are
> extremely rare.)
I think that this is the way we should handle this:
if ( tar tvzf $tarfile | grep -q "\.\..*/" ) ; then exit 1 ; fi
Or something similar...
--
Nicolás Lichtmaier.
Mark Eichin writes:
> Granted, a *real* solution would be some way to point things off to
> other disks and have dpkg "know" about it so it handles upgrades
> cleanly. We've talked about this some but haven't gotten very far.
Maybe a variation on dpkg-divert would fit well ?
--
Yann Dirson
e
Joey Hess writes:
> With this scheme, you arn't running a shell script when you unpack the
> package. You can figure out how to look at the tar file or shar archive or
> whatever format the upstream source is kept in, without running any special
> shell script. The only difference between this
James Troup writes:
> (Especially when people do stuff like release a new Debian revision
> where the only change is the maintainer's email address.)
Maybe we should discuss a policy about such changes. Eg, using -2.1 as
debian-version when you just make changes to version -2 that "don't
affect"
15 matches
Mail list logo
