Matthias Andree wrote:
> I'm not sure currently if Solaris /bin/sh likes $(...) notation or
> insists on `...`
`` is the only portable way.
//Peter
pgpbnpSJnBkbG.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Sun, 06 Jun 2010, Davide Brini wrote:
> Some systems don't install bash or a POSIX sh in /bin, so it may also be
> necessary to create symlinks on those systems. I think it's the easiest
> tradeoff, and should be done anyway, because on such systems many other
> #!/bin/sh or #!/bin/bash scri
On 6-Jun-10, at 9:58 AM, Davide Brini wrote:
On Sunday 06 June 2010, Toby Thain wrote:
Most of the common GNU utilities (including gcc) are in the
standard
Solaris install, either via /usr/sfw/ or by using g prefix (e.g.
gawk,
gmake).
Possibly, but it still means that either scripts using
On Sunday 06 June 2010, Toby Thain wrote:
> >> Most of the common GNU utilities (including gcc) are in the standard
> >> Solaris install, either via /usr/sfw/ or by using g prefix (e.g.
> >> gawk,
> >> gmake).
> >
> > Possibly, but it still means that either scripts using standard
> > names and ex
On 6-Jun-10, at 8:36 AM, Davide Brini wrote:
On Saturday 05 June 2010, Toby Thain wrote:
I'm not sure why Solaris has been insisting for ages now in shipping
default tools that are either old, with less features or downright
broken.
It's not just about sh; other popular tools like awk are
On Saturday 05 June 2010, Toby Thain wrote:
> >
> > I'm not sure why Solaris has been insisting for ages now in shipping
> > default tools that are either old, with less features or downright broken.
> > It's not just about sh; other popular tools like awk are also pretty much
> > unusable by def
On 6-Jun-10, at 7:52 AM, Davide Brini wrote:
On Saturday 05 June 2010, David Sommerseth wrote:
Yes, that can be seen as a solution for some people. But then it
would
be better for us to explicitly require the needed shell rather to
tell
them to (w)hack their system "because easy-rsa don't
On 6-Jun-10, at 6:25 AM, Davide Brini wrote:
On Saturday 05 June 2010, David Sommerseth wrote:
On 05/06/10 00:49, Matthias Andree wrote:
Note that some parts of the scripts may be Solaris /bin/sh
unfriendly,
for instance, Solaris's sh doesn't support test -e or [ -e. My patch
does not add
On Saturday 05 June 2010, David Sommerseth wrote:
> Yes, that can be seen as a solution for some people. But then it would
> be better for us to explicitly require the needed shell rather to tell
> them to (w)hack their system "because easy-rsa don't support old Solaris
> /bin/sh".
>
> We should
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 05/06/10 22:25, Davide Brini wrote:
> On Saturday 05 June 2010, David Sommerseth wrote:
>> On 05/06/10 00:49, Matthias Andree wrote:
>
>>> Note that some parts of the scripts may be Solaris /bin/sh unfriendly,
>>> for instance, Solaris's sh doesn't
On Saturday 05 June 2010, David Sommerseth wrote:
> On 05/06/10 00:49, Matthias Andree wrote:
> > Note that some parts of the scripts may be Solaris /bin/sh unfriendly,
> > for instance, Solaris's sh doesn't support test -e or [ -e. My patch
> > does not address this.
>
> This makes me very reluc
David Sommerseth wrote:
> I'd rather keep the current bashism which works on all platforms
> where bash is available than to apply a patch which will break
> the script from working on one of the supported platforms.
Agree.
//Peter
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 05/06/10 00:49, Matthias Andree wrote:
> Hi,
>
> based on a FreeBSD problem report, I am attaching a patch against the
> 2.1 branch to remove a bashism (source FILE needs to become . FILE) and
> switch the shebang lines to /bin/sh.
Thank you very
Hi,
based on a FreeBSD problem report, I am attaching a patch against the
2.1 branch to remove a bashism (source FILE needs to become . FILE) and
switch the shebang lines to /bin/sh.
Note that some parts of the scripts may be Solaris /bin/sh unfriendly,
for instance, Solaris's sh doesn't support
14 matches
Mail list logo
