Re: sh(1) broken caching [was: Re: Broken sh(1)?]

1999-12-20 Thread Martin Cracauer
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Brian Fundakowski Feldman wrote: On Fri, 17 Dec 1999, Martin Cracauer wrote: I still think we should *seriously* consider switching to pdksh. As I said before, pdksh has other bugs. Also we would loose all the PRs we received in the past. This testing

Re: sh(1) broken caching [was: Re: Broken sh(1)?]

1999-12-20 Thread Brian Fundakowski Feldman
On Fri, 17 Dec 1999, Martin Cracauer wrote: I still think we should *seriously* consider switching to pdksh. As I said before, pdksh has other bugs. Also we would loose all the PRs we received in the past. This testing effort by our user base is a valuable resource. From the tests I ran

Re: sh(1) broken caching [was: Re: Broken sh(1)?]

1999-12-20 Thread Brian Fundakowski Feldman
Over the last year, I did an extensive amount of testinging on bourne shell behaviour. bash2 was the only free sh clone that I never had to complain over. I'm surprised. Is there something substantially you'd like to contribute to the discussion, like - say - an example where bash-2.03

Re: sh(1) broken caching [was: Re: Broken sh(1)?]

1999-12-20 Thread Martin Cracauer
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Brian Fundakowski Feldman wrote: Is there something substantially you'd like to contribute to the discussion, like - say - an example where bash-2.03 doesn't work well? It's definitely broken on some of my scripts before. If you want me to go try to find one of

Re: sh(1) broken caching [was: Re: Broken sh(1)?]

1999-12-17 Thread Martin Cracauer
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], David O'Brien wrote: On Thu, Dec 16, 1999 at 03:40:20PM +0100, Martin Cracauer wrote: You can also fool sh into running the *wrong* binary if if you have two in showdowed paths: pdksh does not suffer from either this problem or the problem that started this thread

Re: sh(1) broken caching [was: Re: Broken sh(1)?]

1999-12-16 Thread Martin Cracauer
You can also fool sh into running the *wrong* binary if if you have two in showdowed paths: #! /bin/sh test -d foo1 || mkdir foo1 test -d foo2 || mkdir foo2 test -d foo2 || mkdir foo3 echo 'echo :one' foo1/run echo 'echo :two' foo2/run echo 'echo :three' foo2/run3 chmod a+x */run* hash -r

Re: sh(1) broken caching [was: Re: Broken sh(1)?]

1999-12-16 Thread David O'Brien
On Thu, Dec 16, 1999 at 03:40:20PM +0100, Martin Cracauer wrote: You can also fool sh into running the *wrong* binary if if you have two in showdowed paths: pdksh does not suffer from either this problem or the problem that started this thread (and does not coredump). We've shown in the past

Re: sh(1) broken caching [was: Re: Broken sh(1)?]

1999-12-15 Thread Martin Cracauer
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Marcel Moolenaar wrote: Sheldon Hearn wrote: On Tue, 14 Dec 1999 15:42:11 +0100, Marcel Moolenaar wrote: You set all those variables for the first make command, but not for the second. What did you expect to happen? That make(1) would execute.

Re: sh(1) broken caching [was: Re: Broken sh(1)?]

1999-12-15 Thread Martin Cracauer
OK, the problem is real. BTW, its worse: #! /bin/sh hash -v PATH=/sbin:/bin PATH=/foo:/bar:/bin ls hash -v ls = coredump Working on it. -- % Martin Cracauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.cons.org/cracauer/ BSD User Group Hamburg,

Re: sh(1) broken caching [was: Re: Broken sh(1)?]

1999-12-15 Thread Marcel Moolenaar
Martin Cracauer wrote: OK, the problem is real. BTW, its worse: #! /bin/sh hash -v PATH=/sbin:/bin PATH=/foo:/bar:/bin ls hash -v ls = coredump It seems to me that when there's a PATH= assignment you don't want to add anything to the cache or alternatively, clear the cache after

Re: sh(1) broken caching [was: Re: Broken sh(1)?]

1999-12-15 Thread Martin Cracauer
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Marcel Moolenaar wrote: It seems to me that when there's a PATH= assignment you don't want to add anything to the cache or alternatively, clear the cache after execution of the command having a PATH= assignment. The first solution is better, but the source messes with

Re: sh(1) broken caching [was: Re: Broken sh(1)?]

1999-12-15 Thread Marcel Moolenaar
Martin Cracauer wrote: In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Marcel Moolenaar wrote: It seems to me that when there's a PATH= assignment you don't want to add anything to the cache or alternatively, clear the cache after execution of the command having a PATH= assignment. The first solution is

Re: sh(1) broken caching [was: Re: Broken sh(1)?]

1999-12-15 Thread Martin Cracauer
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Marcel Moolenaar wrote: Martin Cracauer wrote: In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Marcel Moolenaar wrote: It seems to me that when there's a PATH= assignment you don't want to add anything to the cache or alternatively, clear the cache after execution of the command

Re: sh(1) broken caching [was: Re: Broken sh(1)?]

1999-12-15 Thread Mike Smith
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Marcel Moolenaar wrote: Sheldon Hearn wrote: On Tue, 14 Dec 1999 15:42:11 +0100, Marcel Moolenaar wrote: You set all those variables for the first make command, but not for the second. What did you expect to happen? That make(1) would

sh(1) broken caching [was: Re: Broken sh(1)?]

1999-12-14 Thread Marcel Moolenaar
Sheldon Hearn wrote: On Tue, 14 Dec 1999 15:42:11 +0100, Marcel Moolenaar wrote: You set all those variables for the first make command, but not for the second. What did you expect to happen? That make(1) would execute. But what was the PATH set to _before_ you set it for the