Yeah, I ran into some similar issues years ago... In my case, I got
burned into learning not to assume that bash (or any other shell) is
correct, or even necessarily *self* consistent(even on linux), so I
tend to reflexively do differential checks. It's a very small amount
of effort in the normal
On 02/05/2018 04:01 PM, Robert Thompson wrote:
> It seems that the single-equals is POSIX, while the double-equals is a
> bash extension that at one point bash preferred and extended the match
> behavior of.
>
> But, the bash manpage now documents double-equals (when in the
> context of the built
It seems that the single-equals is POSIX, while the double-equals is a
bash extension that at one point bash preferred and extended the match
behavior of.
But, the bash manpage now documents double-equals (when in the
context of the builtin test or its '[' alias) as equivalent to
single-equals.
FWIW: I think the problem is the double-equals operator:
$ /bin/dash -c 'if [ x = x ]; then echo foo; fi'
foo
$ /bin/dash -c 'if [ x == x ]; then echo foo; fi'
/bin/dash: 1: [: x: unexpected operator
$ /bin/dash -c 'if /usr/bin/[ x == x ]; then echo foo; fi'
foo
POSIX hasn't specified ==. I'm g
On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 10:43 AM, Rob Landley wrote:
> On 02/05/2018 11:34 AM, enh wrote:
>> On Sun, Feb 4, 2018 at 6:14 PM, Rob Landley wrote:
>>> For some reason I thought the next release should happen the middle of
>>> this month, but it turns out it was the middle of last month. (Ok, I've
>>>
On 02/05/2018 11:34 AM, enh wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 4, 2018 at 6:14 PM, Rob Landley wrote:
>> For some reason I thought the next release should happen the middle of
>> this month, but it turns out it was the middle of last month. (Ok, I've
>> been distracted.)
>>
>> So I'm giving myself one more week
On Sun, Feb 4, 2018 at 6:14 PM, Rob Landley wrote:
> For some reason I thought the next release should happen the middle of
> this month, but it turns out it was the middle of last month. (Ok, I've
> been distracted.)
>
> So I'm giving myself one more week to tidy up loose ends. I need to fix
> ps
i think the world has mostly moved on to SHA already anyway, at this
level of the stack. things like CRC are just for hardware these days.
(Android recently removed a software CRC from adb.)
On Sun, Feb 4, 2018 at 7:35 PM, Rob Landley wrote:
> On 02/04/2018 07:54 PM, Rob Landley wrote:
>> But the
