Re: ash word-splitting changes break shell scripts

2001-05-02 Thread Herbert Xu
Mark Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, May 02, 2001 at 07:09:46PM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote: >> There are only two reasons that a change goes into ash. It's either for >> standard-compliance or optimisation. > If you wish to make a version of ash which is minimally-compliant it > would pr

Re: ash word-splitting changes break shell scripts

2001-05-02 Thread Mark Brown
On Wed, May 02, 2001 at 07:09:46PM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote: > Perhaps because we need a POSIX compliant shell? > There are only two reasons that a change goes into ash. It's either for > standard-compliance or optimisation. If you wish to make a version of ash which is minimally-compliant it wo

Re: ash word-splitting changes break shell scripts

2001-05-02 Thread Herbert Xu
Sean 'Shaleh' Perry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > more importantly (to me anyways) is the question of why do we ship an ash that > is completely different from the one the netbsd (upstream) and RH (another > packager). Perhaps because we need a POSIX compliant shell? There are only two reasons th

Re: ash word-splitting changes break shell scripts

2001-05-01 Thread Sean 'Shaleh' Perry
> The autoconf folks try very hard to write portable code. They go to > ridiculous lengths to support every major flavour of OS, compiler, > make, and shell. Indeed, Zack's tests show that only the recent ash > behaves differently. > more importantly (to me anyways) is the question of why do we

Re: ash word-splitting changes break shell scripts

2001-05-01 Thread Steve M. Robbins
On Wed, May 02, 2001 at 07:34:31AM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote: > Steve M. Robbins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > It is likely that the folks who wrote autoconf did not invent this > > idiom for setting and re-setting $IFS. They probably borrowed the > > idea from existing shell code, meaning that

Re: ash word-splitting changes break shell scripts

2001-05-01 Thread Herbert Xu
Steve M. Robbins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It is likely that the folks who wrote autoconf did not invent this > idiom for setting and re-setting $IFS. They probably borrowed the > idea from existing shell code, meaning that the "breakage", as you put > it, will be widespread indeed. Please re

Re: ash word-splitting changes break shell scripts

2001-05-01 Thread Steve M. Robbins
On Tue, May 01, 2001 at 06:15:41PM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote: > On Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 07:48:07PM -0700, Zack Weinberg wrote: > > I can keep this up just as long as you can. > > Everyone around here knows that I just love this game. Children! > In any case, your script is still broken. I'm o