Henry E. Thorpe writes:
 > The test in the 1.409 version of tramp seems to assume that "test -e
 > filename/" will return a non-zero value if filename is not a
 > directory.  Unfortunately, it doesn't on Solaris 2.6:
 > 
 > <wnpwp02:thorpe> uname -a
 > SunOS wnpwp02 5.6 Generic_105181-17 sun4u sparc SUNW,Ultra-60
 > 
 > <wnpwp02:thorpe> test -e /home/thorpe/.envfile/ ; echo tramp_exit_status $?
 > tramp_exit_status 0
 > 
 > <wnpwp02:thorpe> test -e /home/thorpe/.envfil ; echo tramp_exit_status $?
 > tramp_exit_status 1
 > 
 > <wnpwp02:thorpe> ls -l /home/thorpe/.envfil*
 > -rw-r--r--   1 thorpe   inet         328 Jul 27  1998 /home/thorpe/.envfile

Those checks work for me on Solaris 2.6 and 7.  Henry, can you tell us
which shell you were using and which "test" you were picking up.  I
was unable to find any combination that would result in
"tramp_exit_status 1".

Here is a summary of "test" versions on Solaris 2.6 and 7
characterized by their suppport for "-e".  The files checked were a
directory and regular file both beginning with '.'.  In all cases it
does not seem to matter whether or not a '/' is appended to the
directory or file being tested.

1) "test -e" works

-Return is-
exit_status 0
-or-
exit_status 1
-as appropriate-

   /usr/xpg4/bin/sh   builtin
   /usr/bin/ksh       builtin
   /usr/bin/test
   bash 2.03          builtin

2) "test -e" does not check the file but the following echo does something

-Return is-
test: argument expected
exit_status 255
-whether the file exists or not-

   /usr/ucb/test


3) "test -e" does not check the file and the rest of the line is lost

-Return is-
test: argument expected
-whether the file exists or not-

An "echo $?" on the next line will return "1".  This reflects the fact
that the builtin "test" has failed rather than what it was checking for.

   /usr/bin/sh        builtin

-- 
Pete Forman                 -./\.- Disclaimer: This post is originated
Western Geophysical           -./\.-  by myself and does not represent
[EMAIL PROTECTED]         -./\.-  the opinion of Baker Hughes or
http://www.crosswinds.net/~petef  -./\.-  its divisions.

Reply via email to