From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dennis Stosberg Subject: Re: [PATCH] git-fetch: Shell syntax fix for NetBSD Date: Sun, 28 May 2006 23:28:03 +0200 Message-ID: <20060528212803.G53d5b45d@leonov.stosberg.net> References: <20060528204510.G51ab1cf8@leonov.stosberg.net> <7vbqthdfpa.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sun May 28 23:28:17 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FkSo3-0000Ll-OS for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Sun, 28 May 2006 23:28:16 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750897AbWE1V2K (ORCPT ); Sun, 28 May 2006 17:28:10 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750923AbWE1V2K (ORCPT ); Sun, 28 May 2006 17:28:10 -0400 Received: from v345.ncsrv.de ([89.110.145.104]:28626 "EHLO ncs.stosberg.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750897AbWE1V2I (ORCPT ); Sun, 28 May 2006 17:28:08 -0400 Received: from leonov.stosberg.net (p213.54.89.85.tisdip.tiscali.de [213.54.89.85]) by ncs.stosberg.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3C25589000C; Sun, 28 May 2006 23:27:54 +0200 (CEST) Received: by leonov.stosberg.net (Postfix, from userid 500) id ED0921044F0; Sun, 28 May 2006 23:28:03 +0200 (CEST) To: Junio C Hamano Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7vbqthdfpa.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> OpenPGP: id=1B2F2863BA13A814C3B133DACC2811F494951CAB; url=http://stosberg.net/dennis.asc User-Agent: mutt-ng/devel-r802 (Debian) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Junio C Hamano wrote: > Funny. Without the posixy open parenthesis, bash barfs ;-). > > git-fetch: line 219: syntax error near unexpected token `;;' > git-fetch: line 219: ` *^*) continue ;;' > > So how about doing this instead? Does NetBSD default shell > still work with it? This looked so simple that I didn't notice the command substitution... Yes, your version works correctly here. Regards, Dennis