On 03/02/17 at 02:59pm, Allan McRae wrote: > On 02/03/17 14:46, Andrew Gregory wrote: > > On 03/02/17 at 02:37pm, Allan McRae wrote: > >> On 26/02/17 03:21, Andrew Gregory wrote: > >>> Allows use under 'set -u'. > >>> --- > >>> scripts/libmakepkg/util/pkgbuild.sh.in | 2 +- > >>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > >>> > >>> diff --git a/scripts/libmakepkg/util/pkgbuild.sh.in > >>> b/scripts/libmakepkg/util/pkgbuild.sh.in > >>> index 2a4bd3af..08b35f53 100644 > >>> --- a/scripts/libmakepkg/util/pkgbuild.sh.in > >>> +++ b/scripts/libmakepkg/util/pkgbuild.sh.in > >>> @@ -18,7 +18,7 @@ > >>> # along with this program. If not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>. > >>> # > >>> > >>> -[[ -n "$LIBMAKEPKG_UTIL_PKGBUILD_SH" ]] && return > >>> +[[ -n "${LIBMAKEPKG_UTIL_PKGBUILD_SH:-}" ]] && return > >>> LIBMAKEPKG_UTIL_PKGBUILD_SH=1 > >>> > >>> > >> > >> Is this going to need done for every file that you test? I'd prefer one > >> big patch if so. > >> > >> A > > > > If we want to run the tests with 'set -u', this, or something similar > > will have to be done for all libmakepkg files. I actually think > > I like `[[ -v LIBMAKEPKG_UTIL_PKGBUILD_SH ]]` better though. > > > > How long has bash 4.2 been around? Our minimum is currently 4.1.
4.2 appears to have been tagged at the end of 2011.
