Re: shells/bash-4.0 port horribly broken
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 10:31 PM, David O'Brien wrote: > On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 12:48:09PM +0100, Stefan Bethke wrote: > >> The update still remains broken: > >> [r...@portjail ~]$ echo $(uname) > >> -bash: command substitution: line 25: syntax error near unexpected token > >> `)' > >> -bash: command substitution: line 25: `uname)' > > > > I also find this rather annoying. I believe that a rather large > percentage > > of people use bash as their default shell, so moving from 3.2 to 4.0 > should > > have been preceded by a headsup or an entry in UPDATING. > > I didn't have issues with my ~/.bashrc when I updated from 3.2 to 4.0 so > I didn't notice this issue. (guess I'm too old school and use "`"'s). > > -- > -- David (obr...@freebsd.org) > ___ > freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org" > I m not sure if the bash-4.0 port has the current patchset but I know it fixes some issues with $() ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: shells/bash-4.0 port horribly broken
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 12:48:09PM +0100, Stefan Bethke wrote: >> The update still remains broken: >> [r...@portjail ~]$ echo $(uname) >> -bash: command substitution: line 25: syntax error near unexpected token >> `)' >> -bash: command substitution: line 25: `uname)' > > I also find this rather annoying. I believe that a rather large percentage > of people use bash as their default shell, so moving from 3.2 to 4.0 should > have been preceded by a headsup or an entry in UPDATING. I didn't have issues with my ~/.bashrc when I updated from 3.2 to 4.0 so I didn't notice this issue. (guess I'm too old school and use "`"'s). -- -- David (obr...@freebsd.org) ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: shells/bash-4.0 port horribly broken
> By any chance, did you commit a Send-PR for this patch? I will > try the patch later tonight anyway. > Thanks! I've submitted a slightly revised patch in a follow-up to an old PR: http://www.FreeBSD.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/101230 It turns out that some of the parser problems with the new port were noticed with earlier versions, but the maintainer decided to be conservative and chose not to address them then. b. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: shells/bash-4.0 port horribly broken
> Yes, I can confirm on my system (8-CURRENT i386), switching > the port from system yacc to bison 2.x solves the > command substitution problem. Try the attached patch. I confirm that this patch solves the problem. Emanuel pgpQk4iOQmYKE.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: shells/bash-4.0 port horribly broken
On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 14:18:28 -0700 (PDT) bf wrote: >--- On Thu, 3/12/09, bf wrote: >> Hang on guys, we're looking into it. The upstream >> maintainer >> confirms that failures in command substitutions are _not_ >> the >> expected behavior of bash 4.x, that they are not being >> observed on >> many other systems, and that in the past similar problems >> like >> this have been connected with problems in bison, so maybe >> our use >> of system yacc has something to do with it. >> >> The point about running the testsuite is well-taken. >> >> b. > >Yes, I can confirm on my system (8-CURRENT i386), switching >the port from system yacc to bison 2.x solves the >command substitution problem. Try the attached patch. By any chance, did you commit a Send-PR for this patch? I will try the patch later tonight anyway. Thanks! -- Jerry ges...@yahoo.com George Orwell 1984. Northwestern 0. Chicago Reader 10/15/82 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: shells/bash-4.0 port horribly broken
--- On Thu, 3/12/09, bf wrote:
> From: bf
> Subject: Re: shells/bash-4.0 port horribly broken
> To: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org
> Cc: obr...@freebsd.org
> Date: Thursday, March 12, 2009, 4:48 PM
> Hang on guys, we're looking into it. The upstream
> maintainer
> confirms that failures in command substitutions are _not_
> the
> expected behavior of bash 4.x, that they are not being
> observed on
> many other systems, and that in the past similar problems
> like
> this have been connected with problems in bison, so maybe
> our use
> of system yacc has something to do with it.
>
> The point about running the testsuite is well-taken.
>
> b.
Yes, I can confirm on my system (8-CURRENT i386), switching
the port from system yacc to bison 2.x solves the
command substitution problem. Try the attached patch.
b.
diff -ruN bash.orig/Makefile bash/Makefile
--- bash.orig/Makefile 2009-03-12 05:54:01.0 -0400
+++ bash/Makefile 2009-03-12 16:40:28.539057000 -0400
@@ -3,13 +3,13 @@
# Date created:30 Jul 2004
# Whom:Oliver Eikemeier
#
-# $FreeBSD: ports/shells/bash/Makefile,v 1.110 2009/03/12 09:54:01 osa Exp $
+# $FreeBSD: ports/shells/bash/Makefile,v 1.107 2009/03/11 17:00:37 obrien Exp $
#
PORTNAME= bash
PATCHLEVEL=10
PORTVERSION= 4.0.${PATCHLEVEL:S/^0//g}
-PORTREVISION?= 1
+PORTREVISION?= 2
CATEGORIES=shells
MASTER_SITES= ${MASTER_SITE_GNU:S/$/:bash/} \
ftp://ftp.cwru.edu/pub/%SUBDIR%/:faq
@@ -43,6 +43,7 @@
MAN1= bash.1 bashbug.1
INFO= bash
+USE_BISON= yes
GNU_CONFIGURE= yes
.if !defined(NOPORTDOCS)
@@ -91,8 +92,7 @@
LDFLAGS+= -L${LOCALBASE}/lib
CONFIGURE_ENV= CPPFLAGS="${CPPFLAGS}" \
- LDFLAGS="${LDFLAGS}" \
- YACC="${YACC}"
+ LDFLAGS="${LDFLAGS}"
.include
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: shells/bash-4.0 port horribly broken
On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 13:48:47 -0700 (PDT) bf wrote: >Hang on guys, we're looking into it. The upstream maintainer >confirms that failures in command substitutions are _not_ the >expected behavior of bash 4.x, that they are not being observed on >many other systems, and that in the past similar problems like >this have been connected with problems in bison, so maybe our use >of system yacc has something to do with it. > >The point about running the testsuite is well-taken. > >b. I have filed a bug-report with bash about this. So far, I have received one reply with a request for further information. So, I guess someone is at least working on it. -- Jerry ges...@yahoo.com signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: shells/bash-4.0 port horribly broken
Hang on guys, we're looking into it. The upstream maintainer confirms that failures in command substitutions are _not_ the expected behavior of bash 4.x, that they are not being observed on many other systems, and that in the past similar problems like this have been connected with problems in bison, so maybe our use of system yacc has something to do with it. The point about running the testsuite is well-taken. b. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: shells/bash-4.0 port horribly broken
Emanuel Haupt wrote: > The update still remains broken: > > [foo...@portjail ~]$ pkg_info > bash-static-4.0.10_1 The GNU Project's Bourne Again SHell > > [r...@portjail ~]$ set -x > [r...@portjail ~]$ echo $(uname) > -bash: command substitution: line 25: syntax error near unexpected token `)' > -bash: command substitution: line 25: `uname)' This breakage has been introduced somewhere in the first ten patches. 4.0.0 was fine. Which is funny, considering that the patches claim to fix some problems in that area. Apparently nobody runs bash's included regression test suite either... -- Christian "naddy" Weisgerber na...@mips.inka.de ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: shells/bash-4.0 port horribly broken
> them work; however, I feel that the easiest thing would be to simply > revert to Bash-3. This is exactly what I did. Emanuel ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: shells/bash-4.0 port horribly broken
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 4:37 PM, Johan van Selst wrote: > Jerry wrote: >> Was this some sort of 'improvement' by the Bash developers, or is it >> an un-squashed bug? > > It seems that this might actually be a feature. > Quoting the COMPAT document of bash4: > > 38. Since bash-4.0 now follows Posix rules for finding the closing delimiter >of a $() command substitution, it will not behave as previous versions >did, but will catch more syntax and parsing errors before spawning a >subshell to evaluate the command substitution. Sorry, but I didn't see how it can be applied. In another words, how the 'ls' command in the $ echo $(ls) contradicts with POSIX. http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/utilities/xcu_chap02.html#tag_02_06_03 With the $( command) form, all characters following the open parenthesis to the matching closing parenthesis constitute the command. Any valid shell script can be used for command, except a script consisting solely of redirections which produces unspecified results. Sure, 'ls' is not a something that "consisting solely of redirections". -- Andrew W. Nosenko ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: shells/bash-4.0 port horribly broken
,--- You/Jerry (Thu, 12 Mar 2009 10:30:15 -0400) * | I am having the exact same problem. Several of my scripts are now | failing. I have modified a few with the older "`" tic method to make | them work; however, I feel that the easiest thing would be to simply | revert to Bash-3. | | Was this some sort of 'improvement' by the Bash developers, or is it | an un-squashed bug? Breaking the $(command) substitution would be catastrophic and Bash 4.0 documentation claims support for it: http://tiswww.case.edu/php/chet/bash/bashref.html Bash Reference Manual This text is a brief description of the features that are present in the Bash shell (version 4.0, 29 December 2008). This is Edition 4.0, last updated 29 December 2008, of The GNU Bash Reference Manual, for Bash, Version 4.0. 3.5.4 Command Substitution Command substitution allows the output of a command to replace the command itself. Command substitution occurs when a command is enclosed as follows: $(command) or `command` Bash performs the expansion by executing command and replacing the command substitution with the standard output of the command, with any trailing newlines deleted. Embedded newlines are not deleted, but they may be removed during word splitting. The command substitution $(cat file) can be replaced by the equivalent but faster $(< file). -- Alex -- alex-goncha...@comcast.net -- /* * Every time I lose weight, it finds me again! */ ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: shells/bash-4.0 port horribly broken
Jerry wrote: > Was this some sort of 'improvement' by the Bash developers, or is it > an un-squashed bug? It seems that this might actually be a feature. Quoting the COMPAT document of bash4: 38. Since bash-4.0 now follows Posix rules for finding the closing delimiter of a $() command substitution, it will not behave as previous versions did, but will catch more syntax and parsing errors before spawning a subshell to evaluate the command substitution. Ciao, Johan pgpowQxOjpVNe.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: shells/bash-4.0 port horribly broken
On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 12:48:09 +0100 Stefan Bethke wrote: >Am 12.03.2009 um 11:29 schrieb Emanuel Haupt: > $ sudo make ===> Vulnerability check disabled, database not found => bash-4.tar.gz is not in /usr/ports/shells/bash/distinfo. => Either /usr/ports/shells/bash/distinfo is out of date, or => bash-4.tar.gz is spelled incorrectly. *** Error code 1 Stop in /usr/ports/shells/bash. >>> >>> Update: After a recent ports tree update bash now builds correctly >>> here. >> >> The update still remains broken: >> >> [foo...@portjail ~]$ pkg_info >> bash-static-4.0.10_1 The GNU Project's Bourne Again SHell >> >> [r...@portjail ~]$ set -x >> [r...@portjail ~]$ echo $(uname) >> -bash: command substitution: line 25: syntax error near unexpected >> token `)' >> -bash: command substitution: line 25: `uname)' > >I also find this rather annoying. I believe that a rather large >percentage of people use bash as their default shell, so moving from >3.2 to 4.0 should have been preceded by a headsup or an entry in >UPDATING. I am having the exact same problem. Several of my scripts are now failing. I have modified a few with the older "`" tic method to make them work; however, I feel that the easiest thing would be to simply revert to Bash-3. Was this some sort of 'improvement' by the Bash developers, or is it an un-squashed bug? -- Jerry ges...@yahoo.com signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: shells/bash-4.0 port horribly broken
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 1:48 PM, Stefan Bethke wrote: > Am 12.03.2009 um 11:29 schrieb Emanuel Haupt: > $ sudo make ===> Vulnerability check disabled, database not found => bash-4.tar.gz is not in /usr/ports/shells/bash/distinfo. => Either /usr/ports/shells/bash/distinfo is out of date, or => bash-4.tar.gz is spelled incorrectly. *** Error code 1 Stop in /usr/ports/shells/bash. >>> >>> Update: After a recent ports tree update bash now builds correctly >>> here. >> >> The update still remains broken: >> >> [foo...@portjail ~]$ pkg_info >> bash-static-4.0.10_1 The GNU Project's Bourne Again SHell >> >> [r...@portjail ~]$ set -x >> [r...@portjail ~]$ echo $(uname) >> -bash: command substitution: line 25: syntax error near unexpected token >> `)' >> -bash: command substitution: line 25: `uname)' > > I also find this rather annoying. I believe that a rather large percentage > of people use bash as their default shell, so moving from 3.2 to 4.0 should > have been preceded by a headsup or an entry in UPDATING. Hmm... But record in UPDATING won't cure the bug itself. Or error in the parsing $ echo $(ls) construct is not a bug? If it is not a bug but intended behavior, then could someone point me to the appropriate part of documentation? -- Andrew W. Nosenko ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: shells/bash-4.0 port horribly broken
Am 12.03.2009 um 11:29 schrieb Emanuel Haupt: $ sudo make ===> Vulnerability check disabled, database not found => bash-4.tar.gz is not in /usr/ports/shells/bash/distinfo. => Either /usr/ports/shells/bash/distinfo is out of date, or => bash-4.tar.gz is spelled incorrectly. *** Error code 1 Stop in /usr/ports/shells/bash. Update: After a recent ports tree update bash now builds correctly here. The update still remains broken: [foo...@portjail ~]$ pkg_info bash-static-4.0.10_1 The GNU Project's Bourne Again SHell [r...@portjail ~]$ set -x [r...@portjail ~]$ echo $(uname) -bash: command substitution: line 25: syntax error near unexpected token `)' -bash: command substitution: line 25: `uname)' I also find this rather annoying. I believe that a rather large percentage of people use bash as their default shell, so moving from 3.2 to 4.0 should have been preceded by a headsup or an entry in UPDATING. Stefan -- Stefan BethkeFon +49 151 14070811 ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: shells/bash-4.0 port horribly broken
> > $ sudo make > > ===> Vulnerability check disabled, database not found > > => bash-4.tar.gz is not in /usr/ports/shells/bash/distinfo. > > => Either /usr/ports/shells/bash/distinfo is out of date, or > > => bash-4.tar.gz is spelled incorrectly. > > *** Error code 1 > > > > Stop in /usr/ports/shells/bash. > > Update: After a recent ports tree update bash now builds correctly > here. The update still remains broken: [foo...@portjail ~]$ pkg_info bash-static-4.0.10_1 The GNU Project's Bourne Again SHell [r...@portjail ~]$ set -x [r...@portjail ~]$ echo $(uname) -bash: command substitution: line 25: syntax error near unexpected token `)' -bash: command substitution: line 25: `uname)' [r...@portjail ~]$ echo $(uptime) -bash: command substitution: line 26: syntax error near unexpected token `)' -bash: command substitution: line 26: `uptime)' [r...@portjail ~]$ echo $(ls) -bash: command substitution: line 27: syntax error near unexpected token `)' -bash: command substitution: line 27: `ls)' however, backticks work: [r...@portjail ~]$ echo `uname` ++ uname + echo FreeBSD FreeBSD Also, shells/bash now conflicts with shells/bash-completion which it shouldn't. Emanuel -- GnuPG key id: 0x90215DB9 Download: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371 Key fingerprint: 741B C70F 100B F360 0B52 E92D 5F01 7A86 9021 5DB9 ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: shells/bash-4.0 port horribly broken
On Thu 2009-03-12 08:03:23 UTC+1100, andrew clarke (m...@ozzmosis.com) wrote: > $ sudo make > ===> Vulnerability check disabled, database not found > => bash-4.tar.gz is not in /usr/ports/shells/bash/distinfo. > => Either /usr/ports/shells/bash/distinfo is out of date, or > => bash-4.tar.gz is spelled incorrectly. > *** Error code 1 > > Stop in /usr/ports/shells/bash. Update: After a recent ports tree update bash now builds correctly here. Thanks again :) ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
shells/bash-4.0 port horribly broken
Apologies in advance if this is already fixed... $ uname -a FreeBSD blizzard.phoenix 6.4-RELEASE-p1 FreeBSD 6.4-RELEASE-p1 #0: Sun Dec 21 07:56:41 UTC 2008 r...@i386-builder.daemonology.net:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/GENERIC i386 $ sudo portsnap fetch update Looking up portsnap.FreeBSD.org mirrors... 3 mirrors found. Fetching snapshot tag from portsnap1.FreeBSD.org... done. Latest snapshot on server matches what we already have. No updates needed. Ports tree is already up to date. $ sudo make ===> Vulnerability check disabled, database not found => bash-4.tar.gz is not in /usr/ports/shells/bash/distinfo. => Either /usr/ports/shells/bash/distinfo is out of date, or => bash-4.tar.gz is spelled incorrectly. *** Error code 1 Stop in /usr/ports/shells/bash. $ portlint FATAL: Makefile: extra item "PATCHLEVEL" placed in the PORTNAME section. FATAL: Package conflicts with itself. You should remove "bash-[0-24-9].*" from CONFLICTS. WARN: Makefile: "PKGNAMESUFFIX" has to appear earlier. WARN: Found IGNOREFILES. It is not recomended. FATAL: /usr/ports/shells/bash/distinfo: has no SIZE record for bash/bash-4.tar.gz. FATAL: -1: [no checksum record for bash/bash-4.tar.gz.]: WARN: /usr/ports/shells/bash/distinfo: no checksum records for all supported algorithms (SHA256 MD5) for bash/bash-4.tar.gz. 4 fatal errors and 3 warnings found. Thanks, Regards Andrew ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
