> 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
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 Amiga
> 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
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?
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 reas
> 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)
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 sh
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":
>>>
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 `]' ?
Pre
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
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
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
>
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!"
>>
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
> defined in csh or tcsh, AFAIK. ash is a pure bourne
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
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=${HOME}:/usr/bin
>
> then the scripts runs. bash
On Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 12:19:36PM +0200, Ralf Habacker wrote:
> Hi,
>
> the following shell script does not work at least with ash-20031007-1
> although I don't see any reason why this should not be a valid syntax. If
> you use
The reason is, '~' is an extension to the bourne shell syntax, first
Hi,
the following shell script does not work at least with ash-20031007-1
although I don't see any reason why this should not be a valid syntax. If
you use
export PATH=${HOME}:/usr/bin
then the scripts runs. bash has no problems with this.
--- ~/test ---
#!/bin/sh
export PATH=~:/us
18 matches
Mail list logo