On Tue, Nov 06, 2012 at 10:27:46AM -0700, Stephen Warren wrote: > On 11/06/2012 12:26 AM, David Gibson wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 05, 2012 at 10:39:30AM -0700, Stephen Warren wrote: > >> On 11/02/2012 02:26 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > >>> On Tuesday 20 March 2012 22:23:46 Stephen Warren wrote: > >>>> On Ubuntu, /bin/sh is dash (at least by default), and dash's echo > >>>> doesn't accept the -e option. This means that fdtget-runtest.sh's > >>>> EXPECT file will contain "-e foo" rather than just "foo", which > >>>> causes a test failure. > >>>> > >>>> To work around this, run /bin/echo instead of (builtin) echo, > >>>> which has more chance of supporting the -e option. > >>>> > >>>> Another possible fix is to change all the #! lines to /bin/bash > >>>> rather than /bin/sh, and change run_tests.sh to invoke > >>>> sub-scripts using $SHELL instead of just "sh". However, that > >>>> would require bash specifically, which may not be desirable. > >>>> > >>>> --- a/tests/fdtget-runtest.sh +++ b/tests/fdtget-runtest.sh > >>>> > >>>> -echo -e $expect >$EXPECT +/bin/echo -e $expect >$EXPECT > >>> > >>> the better fix is to use printf and %b: printf '%b\n' "$expect" > > >>> $EXPECT > >> > >> What is the relative availability (e.g. on anything other than a > >> modern Linux distro) of a printf binary vs. a /bin/echo binary that > >> supports -e? I certainly heard about /bin/echo -e long before I knew > >> about /usr/bin/printf, although it's quite possible that has no > >> correlation with where /usr/bin/printf is actually installed. > > > > That's the crux of the matter, really. I just had a look on a FreeBSD > > box I have access to and /bin/echo does *not* support -e, but there is > > a printf(1). So the /bin/echo -e approach is definitely no good, > > printf might be but I don't know how widespread it is. > > Out of curiosity, does FreeBSD's sh's built-in echo accept the -e > option? In other words, did the switch to /bin/echo break anything > there?
Yes it does, so yes it does. > For reference, I just booted my ancient Red Hat 7.3 virtual machine, and > it has printf, so I guess it's fairly widely available. > > A quick search yields the following: > > http://old.nabble.com/Re%3A-portability-of-%27printf%27-command-td28144087.html > > which comes to the conclusion that printf is widely available enough to > be OK. > > Oh, and if you find "Portable Shell Scripting" by Peter Seebach on > Google Books or in print, page 18 discusses the portability of printf, > and concludes that it's almost pervasive. Ok, good to hear. -- David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_ | _way_ _around_! http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson _______________________________________________ devicetree-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss
