On Mon, 2008-06-02 at 21:32 -0600, M. Warner Losh wrote:
> In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Joe Marcus Clarke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> : On Mon, 2008-06-02 at 20:40 -0600, M. Warner Losh wrote:
> : > In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> : > Joe Marcus Clarke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> : > : On Mon, 2008-06-02 at 16:52 -0400, Coleman Kane wrote:
> : > : > On Mon, 2008-06-02 at 14:45 -0400, John Baldwin wrote:
> : > : > > On Thursday 15 May 2008 03:55:27 pm Stefan Farfeleder wrote:
> : > : > > > stefanf 2008-05-15 19:55:27 UTC
> : > : > > >
> : > : > > > FreeBSD src repository
> : > : > > >
> : > : > > > Modified files:
> : > : > > > bin/sh expand.c parser.c parser.h
> : > : > > > Log:
> : > : > > > Expand $LINENO to the current line number. This is required by
> : > : > > SUSv3's "User
> : > : > > > Portability Utilities" option.
> : > : > > >
> : > : > > > Often configure scripts generated by the autotools test if
> $LINENO works
> : > : > > and
> : > : > > > refuse to use /bin/sh if not.
> : > : > > >
> : > : > > > Package test run by: pav
> : > : > >
> : > : > > This breaks the build of editors/openoffice-2
> : > : > >
> : > : > > Specifically, the libxslt configure script has two statements like
> this:
> : > : > >
> : > : > > if test "1" == "1"
> : > : > > then
> : > : > > blah blah
> : > : > > endif
> : > : > >
> : > : > > Specifically note the "==" passed to test(1). POSIX says this
> should be "=",
> : > : > > and that's all our test(1) implements. The bash manpage for the
> builtin-test
> : > : > > command says:
> : > : > >
> : > : > > string1 == string2
> : > : > > True if the strings are equal. = may be used in
> place of == for
> : > : > > strict POSIX compliance.
> : > : > >
> : > : > > IOW, it encourages "==". I'm not sure if we want to force the use
> of bash for
> : > : > > certain ports or if we want to just implement bash'isms in our
> tools as we
> : > : > > encounter them (or patch the port?). In this case the patch is not
> : > : > > complicated (just replace the two '==' with '=' in libxslt's
> configure
> : > : > > script).
> : > : > >
> : > : >
> : > : > This is annoying... I had to clean this behavior up once recently in
> : > : > someone else's script. POSIX "test" syntax has been "=" and not "=="
> for
> : > : > a long time. Bash is not C... so I don't understand why the attempt to
> : > : > document "==" as the "proper" operator. My thinking is the offending
> : > : > script should be fixed with a patch that gets forwarded upstream to
> the
> : > : > libxslt team (including a mention that /bin/sh and /bin/test are not
> : > : > documented to support "==" by POSIX).
> : > :
> : > : This is one of the most pervasive bashisms around. We (gnome@)
> : > : typically fix the script to use "=" then forward the information
> : > : upstream. Solaris is also bit by this, so it's usually not a big deal
> : > : to get upstream vendors to fix their scripts.
> : >
> : > Maybe a 'grep ==' on all configure scripts should be SOP, eh?
> :
> : This will yield false positives as many (all?) contain embedded C code.
> : We have been using one regexp that seems to work nicely: " == ". For
> : example:
> :
> : @${FIND} ${WRKSRC} -name Makefile.in | ${XARGS} ${REINPLACE_CMD} -e \
> : 's|" == "|" = "|g'
> :
> : You don't typically find '"' on either side of a == in C.
>
> heh...
>
> Another option would be to add support for it to our test, maybe with
> a warning... :-)
>
> Warner
> If we chose to do that, then I'd also suggest a compile flag to turn on "strict POSIX compliance". Then, perhaps some ports-auto-build-box somewhere could generate a report of the configure scripts that do such things, and could be used to nag them into fixing this problem. Maybe someone should nag the bash developers... -- Coleman Kane
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
