On 2014-04-21 16:40, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 05:23:04PM -0400, John Baldwin wrote:
On Monday, April 21, 2014 3:51:33 pm Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 02:31:12PM -0400, John Baldwin wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 17, 2014 2:50:01 pm Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> > > The following reply was made to PR amd64/188699; it has been noted by
GNATS.
> > >
> > > From: Konstantin Belousov <kostik...@gmail.com>
> > > To: John Allman <free...@hugme.org>
> > > Cc: freebsd-gnats-sub...@freebsd.org
> > > Subject: Re: amd64/188699: Dev tree
> > > Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 21:44:52 +0300
> > >
> > > On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 05:32:45PM +0000, John Allman wrote:
> > > > This is how to reproduce it:
> > > >
> > > > Fresh install of 10 on AMD 64
> > > > install bash `pkg install bash`
> > > > Switch to bash `bash`
> > > > push a here document into a loop: `while true ; do echo; done< <(echo
"123")`
> > > > receive an error: "-su: /dev/fd/62: No such file or directory"
> > > >
> > > > I'm sorry I haven't been able to research this any further. I found
how while working on some important matters. As I mentioned the above
works
fine in all
> > previous versions of FreeBSD up until 10.
> > > > >How-To-Repeat:
> > > > Fresh install
> > > > pkg install bash
> > > > bash
> > > > while true; do echo foo done< <(echo "123")
> > > >
> > > > -su: /dev/fd/62: No such file or directory
> > >
> > > So do you have fdescfs mounted on /dev/fd on the machine where the
> > > test fails ? It works for me on head, and if unmounted, I get the
> > > same failure message as yours. I very much doubt that it has anything
> > > to do with a system version.
> >
> > Question I have is why is bash deciding to use /dev/fd/<n> and require
> > fdescfs? On older releases bash uses named pipes for this instead.
>
> The aclocal.m4 contains the test which verifies the presence and usability
> of /dev/fd/n for n>=3 on the _build_ host. The result of the test
> is used on the installation host afterward.
>
> Such kinds of bugs are endemic in our ports, but apparently upstreams
> are guilty too.
Yuck, yuck. Should we fix our default package builders to not mount
fdescfs?
IMO, using /dev/fd is more efficient since it avoids pipe inode
creation
for the 'document here' interpretation. The /dev/fd is also needed for
fexecve(2) to work (with the shebang scripts). Also, I believe that
some other high-profile ports require it (OpenJDK ?).
That said, the solution is to have fdescfs mounted on /dev/fd.
This probably should be done by an installer.
Yup, we mount it mostly for the java ports.
--
Regards,
Bryan Drewery
_______________________________________________
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
