Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 28 Jan 2008 23:46:42 +0200 | From | Adrian Bunk <> | Subject | Re: [LTP] [TEST] : LTP Build failure on 2.6.24 kernel |
| |
On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 04:21:01PM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Monday 28 January 2008, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 03:43:16PM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > > On Monday 28 January 2008, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 06:53:15AM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > > > > On Monday 28 January 2008, Rishikesh K. Rajak wrote: > > > > > > Here i am getting failure on the x86_64 machine with new kernel. > > > > > > > > > > > > Here is the uname for that machine: > > > > > > > > > > > > rishi@:~/ltp-full-20071231# uname -a > > > > > > Linux rishi.in.ibm.com 2.6.24 #1 SMP PREEMPT Mon Jan 28 06:47:28 > > > > > > UTC 2008 x86_64 GNU/Linux > > > > > > > > > > i'm guessing you're using ubuntu and thus dash is your /bin/sh ... > > > > > shouldnt be a 2.6.24 issue > > > > > > > > > > > make[4]: Entering directory > > > > > > `/root/ltp-full-20071231/testcases/network/tcp_cmds/ftp' > > > > > > ../../generate.sh > > > > > > ../../generate.sh: 60: arith: syntax error: "cnt=cnt-1" > > > > > > > > > > sadly, this is becoming a FAQ. ubuntu ships a broken /bin/sh (dash) > > > > > and thus some LTP scripts fall apart. i would prefer to not change > > > > > the scripts as the message is simple in LTP: fix your shell, dont add > > > > > hacks to LTP. otherwise we slowly back ourselves into this corner > > > > > with the shell scripts where we try to support every craptastic shell > > > > > out there and we're afraid to make any changes because we dont know > > > > > what crappy shell is going to drop a brick. LTP scripts are written > > > > > to be POSIX complaint and only POSIX complaint shells should be > > > > > provided by /bin/sh. > > > > > > > > You better fulfil your claim "LTP scripts are written to be POSIX > > > > complaint" before complaining about shells being unhappy with your > > > > script. E.g. where in IEEE 1003.1-2004 is the "local" you use > > > > specified? > > > > > > yes, local is a bsd extension not in POSIX. it has been implemented by > > > every shell so far though. as soon as someone complains, i'll be more > > > than happy to fix it. > > > > David Korn's ksh93 (e.g. shipped in the Debian "ksh" package) disproves > > your claim "it has been implemented by every shell so far". > > sorry, i left out the operative word "relevant". i dont care what random > shell fails unless people are actually utilizing it as their /bin/sh in any > sort of useful context. as soon as someone complains for real and not just > to be annoying, i'll address their complaint then. >...
You started with claiming "LTP scripts are written to be POSIX complaint" and now that I've shown you a not that uncommon IEEE POSIX 1003.2 compliant shell that can't cope with your non-POSIX script you suddenly introduce the word "relevant".
But when you care only about "relevant" shells you could simply implementing my suggestion of placing a #!/bin/bash at the top of your scripts instead of defining your own POSIX superset that you require from a /bin/sh for allowing a user to execute your script...
> -mike
cu Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days. "Only a promise," Lao Er said. Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
| |