Hi, On Sun, 2008-02-03 at 23:24:06 +0000, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > On Sun, 2008-02-03 at 22:13 +0100, Sven Joachim wrote: > [...] > > after the "fix" for bug #461653 I get tons of errors in my scripts for > > redirecting messages to stderr: > > > > ,---- > > | possible bashism in baz line 13 (should be >word 2>&1): > > | echo "foobar" >&2 > > `---- > > > > According to > > http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/utilities/xcu_chap02.html, > > sections 2.7.5 and 2.7.6, the constructions <&word and >&word are > > perfectly valid /bin/sh syntax. Please don't complain about them. > > Indeed (although the bash manpage doesn't exactly help the impression of > >& being bash-specific). So far as I can see, however, &> /is/ a > bashism, so I'll amend the test to just check for that.
Uh, right, sorry about that. I tripped over &> in dash and checked the bash man page, and mentioned both in the bug report, should have checked SUS though. regards, guillem -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
