On 30-10-2012 18:38, Pontus Lurcock wrote:
On Tue 30 Oct 2012, Bill Meahan wrote:
On 10/30/2012 01:20 PM, Hans Hagen wrote:
filename 2>&1
This has been the correct Bourne shell (POSIX) syntax for many
years. I think it goes all the way back to Bell Labs V7 IIRC
instead of &>filename.
is a "bash-ism"
FWIW, Debian and Ubuntu have a package ‘devscripts’ which includes a
program ‘checkbashisms’ to catch such things (Ubuntu started using
dash as the default sh back in 2006). Ubuntu also has some advice
hm, so i wonder why setuptex fails on that box then (not that i care
much as i can set the path)
on strict-POSIX shell scripting:
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DashAsBinSh#I_am_a_developer._How_can_I_avoid_this_problem_in_future.3F
yes but it renders past workflows pretty useless then .. anyway, someone
has to adapt the installer scripts to such changes
ok, context also changes, but a proper 'crash' is imo better than silent
side effects .. in fact there the how-can is easy: use primitives only -)
Hans
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE
Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands
tel: 038 477 53 69 | voip: 087 875 68 74 | www.pragma-ade.com
| www.pragma-pod.nl
-----------------------------------------------------------------
___________________________________________________________________________________
If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the
Wiki!
maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
webpage : http://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://tex.aanhet.net
archive : http://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/
wiki : http://contextgarden.net
___________________________________________________________________________________
