On Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 12:19:36PM +0200, Ralf Habacker wrote:
Hi,
the following shell script does not work at least with ash-20031007-1
although I don't see any reason why this should not be a valid syntax. If
you use
The reason is, '~' is an extension to the bourne shell syntax, first
Hi Ralf,
Ralf Habacker wrote on Friday, October 17, 2003 12:20 PM:
the following shell script does not work at least with
ash-20031007-1 although I don't see any reason why this
should not be a valid syntax. If you use
export PATH=${HOME}:/usr/bin
then the scripts runs. bash has no
On Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 12:37:10PM +0200, J?rg Schaible wrote:
BTW: It does also not know the [ ] syntax for a built-in test, you always have to
use test:
if test -f /etc/hosts; then
echo /etc/hosts exist!
fi
Beep. Wrong. It knows [ ]
Corinna
and you cannot combine export with
Corinna Vinschen wrote on Friday, October 17, 2003 1:04 PM:
On Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 12:37:10PM +0200, J?rg Schaible wrote:
BTW: It does also not know the [ ] syntax for a built-in test, you
always have to use test:
if test -f /etc/hosts; then
echo /etc/hosts exist!
fi
Beep.
Jörg Schaible wrote:
Corinna Vinschen wrote on Friday, October 17, 2003 1:04 PM:
On Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 12:37:10PM +0200, J?rg Schaible wrote:
BTW: It does also not know the [ ] syntax for a built-in test, you
always have to use test:
if test -f /etc/hosts; then
echo
On Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 05:48:12AM -0700, Brian Dessent wrote:
Jörg Schaible wrote:
Corinna Vinschen wrote on Friday, October 17, 2003 1:04 PM:
On Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 12:37:10PM +0200, J?rg Schaible wrote:
BTW: It does also not know the [ ] syntax for a built-in test, you
always
On Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 03:46:16PM +0200, Ronald Landheer-Cieslak wrote:
On Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 05:48:12AM -0700, Brian Dessent wrote:
I thought this was resolved by making '/bin/[' a symlink to /bin/test.
This gives the appearance of the shell supporting [ ] even though it's
really just
Ronald Landheer-Cieslak wrote:
I thought this was resolved by making '/bin/[' a symlink to /bin/test.
This gives the appearance of the shell supporting [ ] even though it's
really just running a program just as if you had used 'test'.
How does that take care of the closing `]' ?
On Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 02:36:54PM +0200, J?rg Schaible wrote:
Corinna Vinschen wrote on Friday, October 17, 2003 1:04 PM:
On Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 12:37:10PM +0200, J?rg Schaible wrote:
BTW: It does also not know the [ ] syntax for a built-in test, you
always have to use test:
if test -f
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 12:19:36PM +0200, Ralf Habacker wrote:
Hi,
the following shell script does not work at least with ash-20031007-1
although I don't see any reason why this should not be a valid
syntax. If you use
The reason is, '~' is an extension to the bourne
From: Andrew DeFaria
Sent: Friday, October 17, 2003 5:36 PM
OS wars begin(?) - Please, do not!
Non-protable to such OSes that don't have a more modern shell then
Bourne/Ash I guess. Are there any OSes that don't support shells like
csh, tcsh, ksh, bash?
Old info; AmigaOS had(has) very
On Fri, 17 Oct 2003, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 12:19:36PM +0200, Ralf Habacker wrote:
Hi,
the following shell script does not work at least with ash-20031007-1
although I don't see any reason why this should not be a valid syntax. If
you use
The reason is, '~'
Hannu E K Nevalainen wrote:
From: Andrew DeFaria
Sent: Friday, October 17, 2003 5:36 PM
OS wars begin(?) - Please, do not!
Non-protable to such OSes that don't have a more modern shell then Bourne/Ash I guess. Are there any OSes that don't support shells like csh, tcsh, ksh, bash?
From: Andrew DeFaria
Sent: Friday, October 17, 2003 9:20 PM
Hannu E K Nevalainen wrote:
From: Andrew DeFaria
Sent: Friday, October 17, 2003 5:36 PM
OS wars begin(?) - Please, do not!
Non-protable to such OSes that don't have a more modern shell
then Bourne/Ash I guess. Are there any
Hannu E K Nevalainen wrote:
I'm not that concerned about Amiga OS.
I'm not surprised.
Did you even read what I've left unsnipped above,
I glanced at it. Even went on line and googled around for Amiga OS a
little. Too much info too little time. As I said I'm not that concerned
about
From: Andrew DeFaria
Sent: Saturday, October 18, 2003 12:04 AM
Hannu E K Nevalainen wrote:
I'm not that concerned about Amiga OS.
I'm not surprised.
Did you even read what I've left unsnipped above,
I glanced at it. Even went on line and googled around for Amiga OS a
little. Too
16 matches
Mail list logo