Test results of the current gnulib, excluding a few modules which don't even
compile.
The ones that are easiest to fix are probably the 'SKIP's without explanation.
test-getdate and test-posixtm were terminated manually, because they took too
much time. (Are they supposed to be long-running?)
--
Jim Meyering writes:
> Just to be clear: we're taking this slightly kludgey alternative
> solely to accommodate theoretical non-POSIX systems.
Well, no, it's for POSIX systems too. POSIX says that if you clear all
environment variables, the resulting behavior need not conform to POSIX
any more.
> 2010-04-04 Bruno Haible
>
> Assume rmdir exists.
> * m4/rmdir.m4 (gl_FUNC_RMDIR): Remove test whether rmdir exists.
> * doc/posix-functions/rmdir.texi: Remove mention of "old platforms".
Oops, that patch was incomplete: HAVE_RMDIR being undefined, it triggered a
replacement
On 04/06/2010 01:26 PM, Giuseppe Scrivano wrote:
> I have attached a small patch.
>
> Cheers,
> Giuseppe
>
>
>>From 28e0f0e5fdbddbb4373f7fa3f8eea7abf042db56 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Giuseppe Scrivano
> Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2010 21:20:52 +0200
> Subject: [PATCH] doc: update users.txt
>
> *
I have attached a small patch.
Cheers,
Giuseppe
>From 28e0f0e5fdbddbb4373f7fa3f8eea7abf042db56 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Giuseppe Scrivano
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2010 21:20:52 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] doc: update users.txt
* users.txt: Add gcal.
---
ChangeLog |5 +
users.txt |1 +
2
Eric Blake wrote:
> On 04/06/2010 11:26 AM, Jim Meyering wrote:
>>> Even 'env -i' is risky, since you are removing other possibly-important
>>> variables, like POSIXLY_CORRECT. Isn't it better to just do:
>>>
>>> d=`unset TMPDIR; mktemp -d ...`
>>>
>>> and bypass env altogether?
>>
>> Yes, that re
On 04/06/2010 11:26 AM, Jim Meyering wrote:
>> Even 'env -i' is risky, since you are removing other possibly-important
>> variables, like POSIXLY_CORRECT. Isn't it better to just do:
>>
>> d=`unset TMPDIR; mktemp -d ...`
>>
>> and bypass env altogether?
>
> Yes, that reminds me of your reporting
Eric Blake wrote:
> On 04/06/2010 09:36 AM, Jim Meyering wrote:
>> FYI,
>> I noticed unnecessary mktemp simulation in test logs on Solaris 5.11.
>> This fixes it:
>>
>># First, try to use mktemp.
>> - d=`env -u TMPDIR mktemp -d -t -p "$destdir_" "$template_" 2>/dev/null` \
>> + d=`env -i PAT
Eric Blake wrote:
> On 04/05/2010 03:08 PM, Bruno Haible wrote:
>> Jim Meyering wrote:
>>> This could be an argument for wrapping some of the C-only tests in a
>>> simple init.sh-using driver (maybe even automatically). Any test that
>>> creates a temporary file would benefit.
>>
>> Yes, I agree:
On 04/06/2010 09:36 AM, Jim Meyering wrote:
> FYI,
> I noticed unnecessary mktemp simulation in test logs on Solaris 5.11.
> This fixes it:
>
># First, try to use mktemp.
> - d=`env -u TMPDIR mktemp -d -t -p "$destdir_" "$template_" 2>/dev/null` \
> + d=`env -i PATH="$PATH" mktemp -d -t -p "
FYI,
I noticed unnecessary mktemp simulation in test logs on Solaris 5.11.
This fixes it:
>From 5fae8b2c1ede890005a55067b1f6630b114f112d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Jim Meyering
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2010 17:33:51 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] init.sh: portability fix: use env's POSIX-specified -i option
On 04/05/2010 05:42 PM, Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
>>> Is someone aware of a platform that does not have a /usr/bin/printf or
>>> /bin/printf program?
>>
>> Given that Solaris 8 is about as far back as gnulib currently supports,
>> I think we are at the point where the known lack of printf(1) in older
Eric Blake wrote:
On 01/-10/-28163 12:59 PM, Bruno Haible wrote:
Is the 'printf' command portable enough to be used in configure files
and autoconf macros?
The GNU Coding Standards [1] don't mention it as a portable utility. Indeed,
when you use bash version 1 (which does not have 'printf' buil
13 matches
Mail list logo
