Re: [LTP] [TEST] : LTP Build failure on 2.6.24 kernel

[Mike Frysinger]

On Monday 28 January 2008, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 03:43:16PM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Monday 28 January 2008, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 06:53:15AM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > > On Monday 28 January 2008, Rishikesh K. Rajak wrote:
> > > > > Here i am getting failure on the x86_64 machine with new kernel.
> > > > >
> > > > > Here is the uname for that machine:
> > > > >
> > > > > rishi@:~/ltp-full-20071231# uname -a
> > > > > Linux rishi.in.ibm.com 2.6.24 #1 SMP PREEMPT Mon Jan 28 06:47:28
> > > > > UTC 2008 x86_64 GNU/Linux
> > > >
> > > > i'm guessing you're using ubuntu and thus dash is your /bin/sh ...
> > > > shouldnt be a 2.6.24 issue
> > > >
> > > > > make[4]: Entering directory
> > > > > `/root/ltp-full-20071231/testcases/network/tcp_cmds/ftp'
> > > > > ../../generate.sh
> > > > > ../../generate.sh: 60: arith: syntax error: "cnt=cnt-1"
> > > >
> > > > sadly, this is becoming a FAQ.  ubuntu ships a broken /bin/sh (dash)
> > > > and thus some LTP scripts fall apart.  i would prefer to not change
> > > > the scripts as the message is simple in LTP: fix your shell, dont add
> > > > hacks to LTP.  otherwise we slowly back ourselves into this corner
> > > > with the shell scripts where we try to support every craptastic shell
> > > > out there and we're afraid to make any changes because we dont know
> > > > what crappy shell is going to drop a brick.  LTP scripts are written
> > > > to be POSIX complaint and only POSIX complaint shells should be
> > > > provided by /bin/sh.
> > >
> > > You better fulfil your claim "LTP scripts are written to be POSIX
> > > complaint" before complaining about shells being unhappy with your
> > > script. E.g. where in IEEE 1003.1-2004 is the "local" you use
> > > specified?
> >
> > yes, local is a bsd extension not in POSIX.  it has been implemented by
> > every shell so far though.  as soon as someone complains, i'll be more
> > than happy to fix it.
>
> David Korn's ksh93 (e.g. shipped in the Debian "ksh" package) disproves
> your claim "it has been implemented by every shell so far".

sorry, i left out the operative word "relevant".  i dont care what random 
shell fails unless people are actually utilizing it as their /bin/sh in any 
sort of useful context.  as soon as someone complains for real and not just 
to be annoying, i'll address their complaint then.

the issue that spawned this thread has been fixed in latest dash git tree, but 
no new release has been cut.  Debian has grabbed said fixes, so go bug Ubuntu 
if they havent as well.
-mike

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.