From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Cristian Ionescu-Idbohrn Subject: Re: read() builtin doesnt read integer value /proc files (but bashs does) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 20:12:35 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <1012152002160.15865@somehost> References: <20100903212504.GA86276@stack.nl> <20100904193504.GA3357@stack.nl> <20101128084219.GC8818@gondor.apana.org.au> <1012151034250.15865@somehost> <20101215185551.GA22905@burratino> Reply-To: Cristian Ionescu-Idbohrn Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Return-path: Received: from ra.se.axis.com ([195.60.68.13]:48739 "EHLO ra.se.axis.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754851Ab0LOTMh (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Dec 2010 14:12:37 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20101215185551.GA22905@burratino> Sender: dash-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: dash@vger.kernel.org To: dash@vger.kernel.org Cc: 595063@bugs.debian.org Jonathan, On Wed, 15 Dec 2010, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > Cristian Ionescu-Idbohrn wrote: > > On Sun, 28 Nov 2010, Herbert Xu wrote: > >> > >> I'm with Jilles on this. I also don't particularly feel like > >> bloating dash just because of the borked /proc interface when > >> there is a perfectly adequate work-around in "cat". > >> > >> value=$(cat /proc/file) > > > > I wouldn't call that "a perfectly adequate work-around", but a painful > > and unadequate work-around. > > This works in /proc because files in /proc are seekable. > > That said, I don't think borked /proc is a great reason to do this > (it's a better reason to fix /proc). Speeding up the read builtin > might be a good reason. Right. So, there are 2 options here. One is to to make dash work like bash on a proc filesystem, the other to "fix" the kernel. How many linux distributions depend on a "working" dash? Which alternative is the more realistic one? What are the ETAs odds? How do we proceed? Cheers, -- Cristian