I do not have a dog in this fight, but I have to ask: How much person time is worthwhile to invest in supporting Solaris 10?
It has been closed-source (Post-Oracle) <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solaris_(operating_system)#Post-Oracle_closed_source_(Solaris_10_after_March_2010,_and_Solaris_11_(2011_and_later))> since March 2010. On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 1:23 PM, Kurt Hornik <kurt.hor...@wu.ac.at> wrote: > >>>>> Iñaki Úcar writes: > > Same from here: in addition to what the standards say, it always pays to > be defensive and check "Portable Shell Programming" in the Autoconf > manual. Among other things, this says > > '$((EXPRESSION))' > Arithmetic expansion is not portable as some shells (most notably > Solaris 10 '/bin/sh') don't support it. > > motivating the code shown below. Perhaps simplest to always use expr. > > -k > > > > For what it's worth, Autoconf does not assume that arithmetic > > expansion will be available. Instead, it emits the following shell > > code: > > > if ( eval 'test $(( 1 + 1 )) = 2' ) 2>/dev/null; then > > eval 'func_arith () > > { > > func_arith_result=$(( $* )) > > }' > > else > > func_arith () > > { > > func_arith_result=`expr "$@"` > > } > > fi > > > 2017-12-17 23:55 GMT+01:00 Rodrigo Tobar <rto...@icrar.org>: > >> Dear all, > >> > >> During a recent package submission, we were highlighted that some lines > in > >> our configure script didn't follow the correct syntax. The lines looked > like > >> this: > >> > >> x=$(($y/10)) > >> > >> We were indicated at the time that this is because the statement does > not > >> use Bourne shell syntax, which is absolutely true, and also that the > manual > >> warns about this, which is true again. So far everything is clear. > >> > >> However, what confuses me is that even when the manual says that "you > can > >> include an executable (Bourne) shell script configure in your package" > [1], > >> the associated footnote says something slightly different: "The script > >> should only assume a POSIX-compliant /bin/sh" [2]. The footnote goes > even > >> further, and links to the POSIX specification of the Shell Command > Language > >> [3] (as published by The Open Group), which explicitly includes > arithmetic > >> expressions like the one above in its syntax [4]. > >> > >> My question then is: what exact dialect should be considered? Given > that the > >> statement above does not work in the Bourne shell, I conclude that the > >> Bourne shell is not POSIX-compliant. That in turn would make the manual > >> ambiguous as to the precise dialect that should be used by our configure > >> scripts, and either the shells used by R should be changed to be > >> POSIX-compliants, or the manual edited to be more precise regarding . > >> > >> Many thanks. > >> > >> Rodrigo > >> > >> [1] > >> https://cran.r-project.org/doc/manuals/r-release/R-exts. > html#Configure-and-cleanup > >> [2] https://cran.r-project.org/doc/manuals/r-release/R-exts.html#FOOT25 > >> [3] http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/ > utilities/V3_chap02.html > >> [4] > >> http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/ > utilities/V3_chap02.html#tag_18_06_04 > >> > >> ______________________________________________ > >> R-devel@r-project.org mailing list > >> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel > > > > > -- > > Iñaki Úcar > > http://www.enchufa2.es > > @Enchufa2 > > > ______________________________________________ > > R-devel@r-project.org mailing list > > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel > > ______________________________________________ > R-devel@r-project.org mailing list > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel > [[alternative HTML version deleted]] ______________________________________________ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel