From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Gibson Subject: Re: [PATCH] fdtget-runtest.sh: Fix failures when /bin/sh isn't bash Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2012 18:26:56 +1100 Message-ID: <20121106072656.GF23553@truffula.fritz.box> References: <1332296626-19707-1-git-send-email-swarren@wwwdotorg.org> <201211021626.50503.vapier@gentoo.org> <5097F9D2.2040103@wwwdotorg.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5097F9D2.2040103-3lzwWm7+Weoh9ZMKESR00Q@public.gmane.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: devicetree-discuss-bounces+gldd-devicetree-discuss=m.gmane.org-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org Sender: "devicetree-discuss" To: Stephen Warren Cc: devicetree-discuss-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.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