Randy Dunlap <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 19:25:00 +0200 Julio M. Merino Vidal wrote:
>> The correct expression could be $((${a} + 2)). Tested under NetBSD's
>> sh, which is very POSIX-compliant.
>
> Thanks. Does anyone see other changes that are needed?
[..]
> and the co
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 19:25:00 +0200 Julio M. Merino Vidal wrote:
> On 26/06/2007, at 19:19, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> >
> > Are these 2 line changes all that is needed?
> >
> > I sort of expected expressions like $((a + 2)) to need change also...
> > maybe not for dash, but for sh?
>
> The correct exp
On 26/06/2007, at 19:19, Randy Dunlap wrote:
Are these 2 line changes all that is needed?
I sort of expected expressions like $((a + 2)) to need change also...
maybe not for dash, but for sh?
The correct expression could be $((${a} + 2)). Tested under NetBSD's
sh, which is very POSIX-compl
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 12:50:27 +0200 Arne Georg Gleditsch wrote:
> Randy Dunlap <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > OTOH, you also didn't supply a patch. If you do this, I'll be
> > glad to consider it. If I can read it, that is.
>
> I like bash as much as the next guy, but (to my surprise) /bin/sh o
Hi Randy :)
* Randy Dunlap <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> dixit:
> On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 17:33:59 +0200 DervishD wrote:
> > * Jan-Benedict Glaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> dixit:
> > > On Tue, 2007-06-26 12:16:39 +0200, DervishD <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > Given that it happens too with "ldd", it real
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 17:33:59 +0200 DervishD wrote:
> Hi Jan :)
>
> * Jan-Benedict Glaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> dixit:
> > On Tue, 2007-06-26 12:16:39 +0200, DervishD <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Given that it happens too with "ldd", it really *is* that hard. I
> > > don't know why still
Hi Arne :)
* Arne Georg Gleditsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> dixit:
> Randy Dunlap <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > OTOH, you also didn't supply a patch. If you do this, I'll be
> > glad to consider it. If I can read it, that is.
>
> I like bash as much as the next guy, but (to my surprise) /bin/s
Hi Jan :)
* Jan-Benedict Glaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> dixit:
> On Tue, 2007-06-26 12:16:39 +0200, DervishD <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Given that it happens too with "ldd", it really *is* that hard. I
> > don't know why still people think that /bin/sh is always /bin/bash. If
> > they want/
Randy Dunlap <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> OTOH, you also didn't supply a patch. If you do this, I'll be
> glad to consider it. If I can read it, that is.
I like bash as much as the next guy, but (to my surprise) /bin/sh on
my current workstation is actually dash. How about just replacing the
s
On Tue, 2007-06-26 12:16:39 +0200, DervishD <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Matthieu CASTET <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> dixit:
> > On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 10:43:03 -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> >
> > > OTOH, you also didn't supply a patch. If you do this, I'll be glad to
> > > consider it. If I can read it,
Hi Matthieu :)
* Matthieu CASTET <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> dixit:
> On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 10:43:03 -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
>
> > OTOH, you also didn't supply a patch. If you do this, I'll be glad to
> > consider it. If I can read it, that is.
>
> "s|/bin/sh|/bin/bash" is so hard to do ?
G
Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Sat, Jun 23, 2007 at 10:56:45AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 10:43:03 -0700 Randy Dunlap <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
NAK.
Sorry I slept thru another wonderful festival on LKML.
That's probably the best strategy.
You don't have the authority to NAK th
On Sat, Jun 23, 2007 at 10:56:45AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 10:43:03 -0700 Randy Dunlap <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > NAK.
> >
> > Sorry I slept thru another wonderful festival on LKML.
>
> That's probably the best strategy.
>
> > You don't have the authority to NA
Hi,
On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 10:43:03 -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> OTOH, you also didn't supply a patch. If you do this, I'll be glad to
> consider it. If I can read it, that is.
"s|/bin/sh|/bin/bash" is so hard to do ?
Matthieu
PS : this remind me http://www.landley.net/code/firmware/ . Is it so
On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 10:43:03 -0700 Randy Dunlap <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > NAK.
>
> Sorry I slept thru another wonderful festival on LKML.
That's probably the best strategy.
> You don't have the authority to NAK the patch.
Yeah. nak to naks.
> OTOH, you also didn't supply a patch. If yo
On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 10:34:59 +0200 Oleg Verych wrote:
> * From: Randy Dunlap
> * Newsgroups: linux.kernel
> * Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 13:28:10 -0700
> * Organization: Oracle Linux Eng.
>
> []
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ linux-2.6.22-rc5/scripts/decodecode
> > @@ -0,0 +1,47 @@
> > +#!/bin/sh
> > +# D
Having the scripts work with other shells is very helpful for porting,
cross building and the like.
I think it is fair game to require bash to build the
kernel -- after all, GCC and GNU make are required
already, and bash has many helpful features that not
every POSIX shell has.
Also on Linux
On Sat, Jun 23, 2007 at 03:17:27PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Saturday 23 June 2007 13:09, Arkadiusz Miskiewicz wrote:
> > On Saturday 23 of June 2007, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > > Here's a nickel. Get yourself a real shell.
> >
> > POSIX compilant shell isn't real shell?
>
> In this case it's not g
On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 16:34:42 +0200
Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Saturday 23 June 2007 16:32:39 Alan Cox wrote:
>
> > Having the scripts work with other shells is very helpful for porting,
> > cross building and the like.
>
> Well then for the majority of cross compile users you sh
On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 15:17:27 +0200
Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In this case it's not good enough. We're not writing POSIX portable software
> here, but Linux software where /bin/sh is /bin/bash. Similar to the Linux
> kernel which is not written in portable ISO C.
There's no rule th
On Saturday 23 June 2007 16:32:39 Alan Cox wrote:
> Having the scripts work with other shells is very helpful for porting,
> cross building and the like.
Well then for the majority of cross compile users you should consequently write
them in Windows batch language.
> Also on Linux /bin/sh is n
On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 15:17:27 +0200
Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Saturday 23 June 2007 13:09, Arkadiusz Miskiewicz wrote:
> > On Saturday 23 of June 2007, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > > Here's a nickel. Get yourself a real shell.
> >
> > POSIX compilant shell isn't real shell?
>
> In this c
On Saturday 23 of June 2007, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Saturday 23 June 2007 13:09, Arkadiusz Miskiewicz wrote:
> > On Saturday 23 of June 2007, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > > Here's a nickel. Get yourself a real shell.
> >
> > POSIX compilant shell isn't real shell?
>
> In this case it's not good enough. We
On 2007.06.23 15:17:27 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Saturday 23 June 2007 13:09, Arkadiusz Miskiewicz wrote:
> > On Saturday 23 of June 2007, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > > Here's a nickel. Get yourself a real shell.
> >
> > POSIX compilant shell isn't real shell?
>
> In this case it's not good enough.
On Sat, Jun 23, 2007 at 03:26:26PM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 23, 2007 at 03:17:27PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > On Saturday 23 June 2007 13:09, Arkadiusz Miskiewicz wrote:
> > > On Saturday 23 of June 2007, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > > > Here's a nickel. Get yourself a real shell.
> > >
On Sat, Jun 23, 2007 at 03:17:27PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Saturday 23 June 2007 13:09, Arkadiusz Miskiewicz wrote:
> > On Saturday 23 of June 2007, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > > Here's a nickel. Get yourself a real shell.
> >
> > POSIX compilant shell isn't real shell?
>
> In this case it's not g
On Saturday 23 June 2007 13:09, Arkadiusz Miskiewicz wrote:
> On Saturday 23 of June 2007, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > Here's a nickel. Get yourself a real shell.
>
> POSIX compilant shell isn't real shell?
In this case it's not good enough. We're not writing POSIX portable software
here, but Linux sof
On Saturday 23 of June 2007, Andi Kleen wrote:
> Here's a nickel. Get yourself a real shell.
POSIX compilant shell isn't real shell?
> -Andi
--
Arkadiusz MiśkiewiczPLD/Linux Team
arekm / maven.plhttp://ftp.pld-linux.org/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubs
Here's a nickel. Get yourself a real shell.
-Andi
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
29 matches
Mail list logo
