Concern about new g-b-s logging change - loss of error detection

Max Bowsher
Sun Nov 20 17:21:00 GMT 2005

Hash: SHA1

Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Nov 2005, Max Bowsher wrote:
>>Summary: The addition of the 'logging' g-b-s feature introduced a bug:
>>Errors during phases of package building do not halt the build, so that
>>an error during 'make' or 'make install' would not prevent the 'pkg'
>>operation running, and producing flawed package files.
>>If no one has time to fix the logging feature properly right now, could
>>we just revert the logging feature from g-b-s CVS HEAD until someone does?
> Let's try to come up with a solution (see below), but if we can't very
> soon, I'll disable the logging.



>>>>or use $PIPESTATUS (which is a bashism, and is fragile, unless we use
>>>I think using a bashism is OK. Even people who don't actually use bash
>>>interactively will have it installed - it's in 'Base', after all.
> So, we make g-b-s a /usr/bin/bash script instead of /bin/sh script?  Are
> there any objections to this?  Is this script ever used in any (e.g.,
> cross-compilation) environments where /bin/sh is *not* bash?

Bash usually lives in /bin, not /usr/bin.

I would think that any Linux system featureful enough to have a
compiler, would have a /bin/bash.

>>>Why would ${PIPESTATUS[1]} not be OK?
> Because that would only work for cases where the only pipe is added by
> logging (i.e., fragile).  If someone ever wanted to pipe something to
> configure in that step, whoever made the change would need to know to
> change ${PIPESTATUS[1]} to ${PIPESTATUS[2]}, which is too easy to miss
> (i.e., fragile).  I'm willing to be convinced that I'm being paranoid
> here, though.

Hang on: It is the *first* item in the pipe (the real command) that we
care about, anyway, not any filters placed after it. So,
${PIPESTATUS[0]}, and we don't need to worry about people adding to the
end of the pipe.


Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Cygwin)


More information about the Cygwin-apps mailing list