[patch] testsuite/testing.sh: removes obvious bashisms

walter harms WHarms at bfs.de
Fri May 2 12:16:24 UTC 2008



Cristian Ionescu-Idbohrn wrote:
t.
> 
> The two major examples I gave are 'echo' and 'printf'.
> 
> echo usage in the test-scripts:
> 
>   - the '-e' options is _not_ posix
>   - use of the '-e' option may lead to several tests failing if the
>     default shell (dash on several distributions) does not support it
>   - I think the '-n' option should also be avoided
>   - I'm _not_ saying busybox echo should not support the '-e' and '-n'
>     options
>   - and this is what I base my statements on:
>       http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/utilities/echo.html
>   - the above document talks about "XSI-conformant systems" and says
>     "The following character sequences shall be recognized on
>     XSI-conformant systems"; '\xHH' is not one of them, but '\OOO' is; the
>     question is: can we always assume XSI-conformancy of all default
>     shells on all distributions?
> 

this is correct but be real this is a *testscript* you can simply add to the docu
"we expect that echo support <list of>". Making a script work with "posix only"
is a nice exercise but that would miss the point of this testscript.

Even if this script work with bash only i do not see any problem -- that you can not
test it on any not-bash-supported system is a problem but not for the system --
since the (busybox-) code should work there if test on a other box.

we have a lot of missing tests *that* is a problem.

look at autoconf code if you want to work around bug that the different type of
shell may have, not very pleasant reading.

just my 2 cent,
 wh





More information about the busybox mailing list