On 5/20/05, Matthew Burgess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Steve Crosby wrote:
>
> > Just drop the "[" construct altogether and use /bin/test exclusively?
>
> Well, I'd much prefer just punting on this. Let's just assume that if a
> shell implements 'test' then it does so in a standards conformant
Steve Crosby wrote:
Just drop the "[" construct altogether and use /bin/test exclusively?
Well, I'd much prefer just punting on this. Let's just assume that if a
shell implements 'test' then it does so in a standards conformant
manner. If it doesn't then the affected user reports it as a bug
u
On 20 May 2005, you wrote in lfs.dev:
> Robert Russell wrote:
>> On 5/19/05, Bryan Kadzban <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
> However, we might be able to do something with exec in a subshell
> instead (since exec won't run a builtin or function, only an
> executable):
>
> if ( exec [ -r file1 ] )
Robert Russell wrote:
> On 5/19/05, Bryan Kadzban <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> We could use the "enable" builtin to disable the builtin versions
>> in bash:
>>
>> enable -n test [
>>
>> I'm (again) not sure about other shells, though...
>
>
> Wouldn't the binaries in /bin be used if the she
On 5/19/05, Bryan Kadzban <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, May 19, 2005 at 04:38:30PM +0100, Matthew Burgess wrote:
> > Both '[' and 'test' are bash builtins as well as
> > binaries in /bin. Is there anyway we can force the bootscripts to
> > choose the implementations in /bin without having t
Michael Kipper wrote:
Hi!
Okay, I know, wierd subject line, but what I'm trying to accomplish is
this:
Currently, I build my LFS system from a set of scripts; usually, it's just
a matter of a '# make lfs' before I go to sleep, and when I wake up,
there's a shiny new LFS system, configured and ready
Hi!
Okay, I know, wierd subject line, but what I'm trying to accomplish is
this:
Currently, I build my LFS system from a set of scripts; usually, it's just
a matter of a '# make lfs' before I go to sleep, and when I wake up,
there's a shiny new LFS system, configured and ready to go for me. Howev
On Thu, May 19, 2005 at 04:38:30PM +0100, Matthew Burgess wrote:
> Both '[' and 'test' are bash builtins as well as
> binaries in /bin. Is there anyway we can force the bootscripts to
> choose the implementations in /bin without having to rely on potentially
> non-SUSV3 conformant shell builtin
Matthew Burgess wrote:
http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/utilities/test.html
suggests it's standardised, so as long as the shell you're using adheres
to the SUSV3 standard that construct should work just fine.
OK, cluebat needed. Both '[' and 'test' are bash builtins as well as
bina
Bryan Kadzban wrote:
Or should it be:
if [ $CUR_LENGTH -eq 0 ]; then
instead, to do a numeric comparison? (Either with or without the
quotes. It shouldn't matter unless $CUR_LENGTH might be unset.)
I was thinking the same thing.
(OTOH, is that a bashism too? I'd hope not, but I don't know for su
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
> In /etc/rc.d/init.d/functions, we have:
>
> # if CUR_LENGTH was set to zero, then end the line
> if [ "${CUR_LENGTH}" == "0" ]; then
> echo ""
> fi
>
> "==" is a bash-specific "pattern matching" operator. In this context, it
>
11 matches
Mail list logo
