Re: [PATCH] fdtget-runtest.sh: Fix failures when /bin/sh isn't bash

[David Gibson <david-xT8FGy+AXnRB3Ne2BGzF6laj5H9X9Tb+@public.gmane.org>]

On Mon, Nov 05, 2012 at 10:39:30AM -0700, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 11/02/2012 02:26 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Tuesday 20 March 2012 22:23:46 Stephen Warren wrote:
> >> On Ubuntu, /bin/sh is dash (at least by default), and dash's echo
> >> doesn't accept the -e option. This means that fdtget-runtest.sh's
> >> EXPECT file will contain "-e foo" rather than just "foo", which
> >> causes a test failure.
> >> 
> >> To work around this, run /bin/echo instead of (builtin) echo,
> >> which has more chance of supporting the -e option.
> >> 
> >> Another possible fix is to change all the #! lines to /bin/bash
> >> rather than /bin/sh, and change run_tests.sh to invoke
> >> sub-scripts using $SHELL instead of just "sh". However, that
> >> would require bash specifically, which may not be desirable.
> >> 
> >> --- a/tests/fdtget-runtest.sh +++ b/tests/fdtget-runtest.sh
> >> 
> >> -echo -e $expect >$EXPECT +/bin/echo -e $expect >$EXPECT
> > 
> > the better fix is to use printf and %b: printf '%b\n' "$expect" >
> > $EXPECT
> 
> What is the relative availability (e.g. on anything other than a
> modern Linux distro) of a printf binary vs. a /bin/echo binary that
> supports -e? I certainly heard about /bin/echo -e long before I knew
> about /usr/bin/printf, although it's quite possible that has no
> correlation with where /usr/bin/printf is actually installed.

That's the crux of the matter, really.  I just had a look on a FreeBSD
box I have access to and /bin/echo does *not* support -e, but there is
a printf(1).  So the /bin/echo -e approach is definitely no good,
printf might be but I don't know how widespread it is.

-- 
David Gibson			| I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au	| minimalist, thank you.  NOT _the_ _other_
				| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson