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

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

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1166 bytes --]

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.
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 827 bytes --]

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

[Adrian Bunk]

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?

Or instead of working on making your script using only the stuff 
specified in IEEE 1003.1-2004 you could simply replace the #!/bin/sh at 
the top with a #!/bin/bash and everbody will be happy.

> -mike

cu
Adrian

-- 

       "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
        of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
       "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
                                       Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

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

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1968 bytes --]

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.

> Or instead of working on making your script using only the stuff
> specified in IEEE 1003.1-2004 you could simply replace the #!/bin/sh at
> the top with a #!/bin/bash and everbody will be happy.

no
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 827 bytes --]

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

[Adrian Bunk]

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".

> > Or instead of working on making your script using only the stuff
> > specified in IEEE 1003.1-2004 you could simply replace the #!/bin/sh at
> > the top with a #!/bin/bash and everbody will be happy.
> 
> no
> -mike

cu
Adrian

-- 

       "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
        of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
       "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
                                       Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

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

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2641 bytes --]

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 #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 827 bytes --]

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

[Adrian Bunk]

On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 04:21:01PM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> 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.
>...

You started with claiming "LTP scripts are written to be POSIX 
complaint" and now that I've shown you a not that uncommon IEEE POSIX 
1003.2 compliant shell that can't cope with your non-POSIX script you 
suddenly introduce the word "relevant".

But when you care only about "relevant" shells you could simply 
implementing my suggestion of placing a #!/bin/bash at the top of your 
scripts instead of defining your own POSIX superset that you require 
from a /bin/sh for allowing a user to execute your script...

> -mike

cu
Adrian

-- 

       "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
        of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
       "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
                                       Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

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

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3706 bytes --]

On Monday 28 January 2008, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 04:21:01PM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > 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.
> >...
>
> You started with claiming "LTP scripts are written to be POSIX
> complaint" and now that I've shown you a not that uncommon IEEE POSIX
> 1003.2 compliant shell that can't cope with your non-POSIX script you
> suddenly introduce the word "relevant".

what's your point ?  LTP scripts are POSIX compliant with a little extra that 
so far has worked fine for everyone actually running LTP.  as soon as the 
little extra realistically becomes a problem, i'll rework things.  you havent 
shown a realistic system.  i'm willing to tweak things for real LTP users, 
not people being tools.

> But when you care only about "relevant" shells you could simply
> implementing my suggestion of placing a #!/bin/bash at the top of your
> scripts instead of defining your own POSIX superset that you require
> from a /bin/sh for allowing a user to execute your script...

no.  people run LTP on embedded systems w/out bash.
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 827 bytes --]