[mlmmj] [patch] Remove bashism from src/mlmmj-make-ml.sh.in

[mlmmj] [patch] Remove bashism from src/mlmmj-make-ml.sh.in

[Thomas Goirand]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 446 bytes --]

Hi,

src/mlmmj-make-ml.sh.in declares it uses sh and not bash, but it has
bashism which may fail if dash is the default implementation for sh
(which is the case now in both Debian and Ubuntu).

Please apply the attached patch which removes bashism in
src/mlmmj-make-ml.sh.in. I've been carrying this patch for too long, and
I'd like to have it removed from the debian/patches folder for the next
release of MLMMJ.

Thanks,

Thomas Goirand (zigo)

[-- Attachment #2: 06_fix_bashisms_mlmmj-make-ml.diff --]
[-- Type: text/x-diff, Size: 598 bytes --]

From: <dan@icarus.sumodave.com>
Subject: Remove bashisms from make-mlmmj-ml script.
Forwarded: no
diff -urNad a/src/mlmmj-make-ml.sh.in b/src/mlmmj-make-ml.sh.in
--- a/src/mlmmj-make-ml.sh.in	2008-10-30 21:01:13.000000000 +0000
+++ b/src/mlmmj-make-ml.sh.in	2010-01-04 20:44:42.000000000 +0000
@@ -21,7 +21,7 @@
 do
 case "$Option" in 
 	h )
-	echo -e "$USAGE"
+	echo "$USAGE"
 	exit 0
 	;;
 	z )
@@ -42,7 +42,8 @@
 	CHOWN="$OPTARG"
 	;;
 	* )
-	echo -e "$0: invalid option\nTry $0 -h for more information."
+	echo "$0: invalid option"
+	echo "Try $0 -h for more information."
 	exit 1
 esac
 done

Re: [mlmmj] [patch] Remove bashism from src/mlmmj-make-ml.sh.in

[Mark Alan]

On Sun, 22 Jan 2012 15:52:20 +0800, Thomas Goirand <thomas@goirand.fr>
wrote:

> -	echo -e "$0: invalid option\nTry $0 -h for more information."
> +	echo "$0: invalid option"
> +	echo "Try $0 -h for more information."

Better yet, use a single command:
-	echo -e "$0: invalid option\nTry $0 -h for more information."
+	printf "$0: invalid option\nTry $0 -h for more information.\n"


M.

Re: [mlmmj] [patch] Remove bashism from src/mlmmj-make-ml.sh.in

[Ben Schmidt]

On 22/01/12 11:23 PM, Mark Alan wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Jan 2012 15:52:20 +0800, Thomas Goirand<thomas@goirand.fr>
> wrote:
>
>> -	echo -e "$0: invalid option\nTry $0 -h for more information."
>> +	echo "$0: invalid option"
>> +	echo "Try $0 -h for more information."
>
> Better yet, use a single command:
> -	echo -e "$0: invalid option\nTry $0 -h for more information."
> +	printf "$0: invalid option\nTry $0 -h for more information.\n"

Are you sure this is sh compatible?

I wonder if the echo version is perhaps more readable, and thus
preferable anyway, rather than single-command wizardry. What do you
think?

Ben.

Re: [mlmmj] [patch] Remove bashism from src/mlmmj-make-ml.sh.in

[Yuri D'Elia]

On 22.01.2012 14:27, Ben Schmidt wrote:
> Are you sure this is sh compatible?

Yes, printf is a standard posix utility and actually less susceptible 
to the echo builtin in various shells.

> I wonder if the echo version is perhaps more readable, and thus
> preferable anyway, rather than single-command wizardry. What do you
> think?

I would prefer two echos myself.

Re: [mlmmj] [patch] Remove bashism from src/mlmmj-make-ml.sh.in

[Thomas Goirand]

On 01/22/2012 09:27 PM, Ben Schmidt wrote:
> On 22/01/12 11:23 PM, Mark Alan wrote:
>> On Sun, 22 Jan 2012 15:52:20 +0800, Thomas Goirand<thomas@goirand.fr>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> -    echo -e "$0: invalid option\nTry $0 -h for more information."
>>> +    echo "$0: invalid option"
>>> +    echo "Try $0 -h for more information."
>>
>> Better yet, use a single command:
>> -    echo -e "$0: invalid option\nTry $0 -h for more information."
>> +    printf "$0: invalid option\nTry $0 -h for more information.\n"
> 
> Are you sure this is sh compatible?

The Debian "checkbashisms" script doesn't report any error with it.

> I wonder if the echo version is perhaps more readable, and thus
> preferable anyway, rather than single-command wizardry. What do you
> think?

I agree.

Thomas

Re: [mlmmj] [patch] Remove bashism from src/mlmmj-make-ml.sh.in

[Ben Schmidt]

>>> Better yet, use a single command:
>>> -    echo -e "$0: invalid option\nTry $0 -h for more information."
>>> +    printf "$0: invalid option\nTry $0 -h for more information.\n"
>>
>> Are you sure this is sh compatible?
>
> The Debian "checkbashisms" script doesn't report any error with it.

Thanks to you and everyone else who confirmed this for me. It is greatly
appreciated.

>> I wonder if the echo version is perhaps more readable, and thus
>> preferable anyway, rather than single-command wizardry. What do you
>> think?
>
> I agree.

I think the majority has this view.

I'm pushing the change out now.

Ben.