On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 04:59:04PM -0500, Dan McGhee wrote: > On 10/12/2013 03:01 PM, Ken Moffat wrote: > >> > > Maybe the syntax highlighting in that version of gedit is missing > > or broken. Try vim and see how it looks ('syntax on' in ~/.vimrc or > > /etc/vimrc). I use a black background, with ':colorscheme elflord' > > I didn't see anything unusual when I pasted that line into a script. > > > > Not that vim's highlighting is perfect, it occasionally gets > > confused but usually only when I scroll a long way through a long > > script. > That was one of my first thoughts and so I loaded up a script that I > knew worked and looked at it. It was fine. BTW it was the build script > you helped me with a few years ago. You taught me how to extract the > package name from a tar archive not knowing what the final extender > was--gz, tz, bz, bz2. If you're interested, I've got that down to one > line now instead of four since tar -xf works for all the stuff that I've > tested.
Yeah - I think I've still got that in my functions. As you say, it hasn't been needed for a few years. The problem is knowing when the last system with an old version of tar has gone. I know, I'll claim I'm retaining it in case I ever have to build from a debian system <joke/>. > > My thought was, "If there's something wrong in that line, the cd... > line, then if I edit it, I might get all the pretty colors back in the > rest of the script. The offensive character I found when I removed it > is the " following $(pwd). When I remove the " gedit indicates that the > syntax is OK. The problem, and it's not really a problem, is that this > exact line is the first in every function call of the script for _make), > _check) and _install). I understand the command because it puts you in > the right directory to run ./configure, make and install. > > When I first saw this line, I thought that the purpose of all the " was > to keep the shell from expanding things execpt a few special > characters. As a matter of fact, after I did some more editing just > know, I discovered that it's the combination of () and "" with $pwd that > causes the problem. Either set of characters *used alone* works. In > combination everything after ...d)" including the " is pink in gedit. I > know that last was a highly technical statement of the analysis. :) > > I wonder if the first " escapes the first ( and the last " is seen as an > unresolved quote. Well, at least I found the problem, even though the > syntax sin escapes me--no pun intended, but when I read it, it's not a > bad one. > > The script has been recently edited. I don't know how recently tested. > Hopefully, we can get the situation corrected. > Parentheses can be a pain. In metaflac all tag values are input in double-quoted strings, but I've never managed to get parentheses in a tag - I did once manage \( which wasn't at all what I wanted, but every other attempt got an error report from bash. Similarly, a parenthesised subshell which is commented by # in a here document (e.g. the command to get the libxul sdk in firefox's mozconfig in the BLFS book) *is* evaluated by bash - took me a long while to work out where the message : Package libxul was not found in the pkg-config search path. Perhaps you should add the directory containing `libxul.pc' to the PKG_CONFIG_PATH environment variable No package 'libxul' found was coming from when I built firefox without xulrunner :) But it's all about learning. ĸen -- das eine Mal als Tragödie, dieses Mal als Farce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page