In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Joe Marcus Clarke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: On Mon, 2008-06-02 at 20:40 -0600, M. Warner Losh wrote:
: > In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
: > Joe Marcus Clarke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: > : On Mon, 2008-06-02 at 16:52 -0400, Coleman Kane wrote:
: > : > On Mon, 2008-06-02 at 14:45 -0400, John Baldwin wrote:
: > : > > On Thursday 15 May 2008 03:55:27 pm Stefan Farfeleder wrote:
: > : > > > stefanf 2008-05-15 19:55:27 UTC
: > : > > >
: > : > > > FreeBSD src repository
: > : > > >
: > : > > > Modified files:
: > : > > > bin/sh expand.c parser.c parser.h
: > : > > > Log:
: > : > > > Expand $LINENO to the current line number. This is required by
: > : > > SUSv3's "User
: > : > > > Portability Utilities" option.
: > : > > >
: > : > > > Often configure scripts generated by the autotools test if
$LINENO works
: > : > > and
: > : > > > refuse to use /bin/sh if not.
: > : > > >
: > : > > > Package test run by: pav
: > : > >
: > : > > This breaks the build of editors/openoffice-2
: > : > >
: > : > > Specifically, the libxslt configure script has two statements like
this:
: > : > >
: > : > > if test "1" == "1"
: > : > > then
: > : > > blah blah
: > : > > endif
: > : > >
: > : > > Specifically note the "==" passed to test(1). POSIX says this should
be "=",
: > : > > and that's all our test(1) implements. The bash manpage for the
builtin-test
: > : > > command says:
: > : > >
: > : > > string1 == string2
: > : > > True if the strings are equal. = may be used in place
of == for
: > : > > strict POSIX compliance.
: > : > >
: > : > > IOW, it encourages "==". I'm not sure if we want to force the use of
bash for
: > : > > certain ports or if we want to just implement bash'isms in our tools
as we
: > : > > encounter them (or patch the port?). In this case the patch is not
: > : > > complicated (just replace the two '==' with '=' in libxslt's
configure
: > : > > script).
: > : > >
: > : >
: > : > This is annoying... I had to clean this behavior up once recently in
: > : > someone else's script. POSIX "test" syntax has been "=" and not "==" for
: > : > a long time. Bash is not C... so I don't understand why the attempt to
: > : > document "==" as the "proper" operator. My thinking is the offending
: > : > script should be fixed with a patch that gets forwarded upstream to the
: > : > libxslt team (including a mention that /bin/sh and /bin/test are not
: > : > documented to support "==" by POSIX).
: > :
: > : This is one of the most pervasive bashisms around. We (gnome@)
: > : typically fix the script to use "=" then forward the information
: > : upstream. Solaris is also bit by this, so it's usually not a big deal
: > : to get upstream vendors to fix their scripts.
: >
: > Maybe a 'grep ==' on all configure scripts should be SOP, eh?
:
: This will yield false positives as many (all?) contain embedded C code.
: We have been using one regexp that seems to work nicely: " == ". For
: example:
:
: @${FIND} ${WRKSRC} -name Makefile.in | ${XARGS} ${REINPLACE_CMD} -e \
: 's|" == "|" = "|g'
:
: You don't typically find '"' on either side of a == in C.
heh...
Another option would be to add support for it to our test, maybe with
a warning... :-)
Warner
_______________________________________________
cvs-all@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
