> > POSIX's Shell and Utilities (XCU) 2.12 [1] does say that "[the]
> > environment of the shell process shall not be changed by the utility",
> > and that environment includes open files. My understanding is that
> > dash's new behaviour (and incidentally, ksh93's one) is incorrect.
> As I unders
(-cc: debian-devel)
Stéphane Glondu wrote:
> [CC-ing debian-devel to get more opinions]
Sorry for the tone of my last response. But really, more opinions are
not needed, though the increased review of the ramifications of the
change is welcome. Facts should suffice. ;-)
> POSIX's Shell and Uti
[CC-ing debian-devel to get more opinions]
On 10/06/2011 04:07 PM, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
>> ocamlbuild's logic is definitively incorrect, but I'm not sure if dash's
>> new behaviour is correct. "bash -c" doesn't skip fork() when a
>> redirection is set up, I guess for a reason. "dash -c" should p
Stéphane Glondu wrote:
> ocamlbuild's logic is definitively incorrect, but I'm not sure if dash's
> new behaviour is correct. "bash -c" doesn't skip fork() when a
> redirection is set up, I guess for a reason. "dash -c" should probably
> do the same for the same reason.
Hold on a second. Dash is
On 10/05/2011 11:51 PM, Stéphane Glondu wrote:
> It seems that darcs failure was unrelated. I digged a bit more, and
> found some suspicious code in ocamlbuild:
>
> http://caml.inria.fr/mantis/view.php?id=5371
>
> I still don't understand why this corner case is triggered with this
> patched da
Le 26/09/2011 22:44, Jonathan Nieder a écrit :
>> I beg to differ. ocamlbuild uses libc's system(), it would be insane to
>> change that. It seems that darcs is also affected. There might be also
>> more packages affected...
>
> Got it --- I'll prepare an upload reverting the "sh -c" patch.
>
> M
severity 642922 serious
thanks
On 0, Stéphane Glondu wrote:
> Le 25/09/2011 20:39, Jonathan Nieder a écrit :
> > Thanks for letting me know. This is important (and a regression), but
> > it should be possible to work around in ocamlbuild as easily as using
> > "bash", so I don't see why that wo
tags 642922 + upstream
severity 642922 serious
quit
Stéphane Glondu wrote:
> Le 25/09/2011 20:39, Jonathan Nieder a écrit :
>> Thanks for letting me know. This is important (and a regression), but
>> it should be possible to work around in ocamlbuild as easily as using
>> "bash", so I don't see
Le 25/09/2011 20:39, Jonathan Nieder a écrit :
> Thanks for letting me know. This is important (and a regression), but
> it should be possible to work around in ocamlbuild as easily as using
> "bash", so I don't see why that would make it release-critical.
I beg to differ. ocamlbuild uses libc's
block 642835 by 642922
block 642706 by 642922
severity 642922 serious
thanks
Le 25/09/2011 19:28, Stéphane Glondu a écrit :
> Bugs #642706 (bin-prot FTBFS) and #642835 (sexplib310 FTBFS) can be
> fixed by reverting the patch submitted at [1]. I don't understand why.
>
> [1] http://thread.gmane.or
Package: dash
Version: 0.5.7-1
Severity: important
Tags: patch
Hello,
Bugs #642706 (bin-prot FTBFS) and #642835 (sexplib310 FTBFS) can be
fixed by reverting the patch submitted at [1]. I don't understand why.
[1] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.shells.dash/556
While investigating #642706, in
11 matches
Mail list logo
