[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: install-sh -C
From: |
Ralf Wildenhues |
Subject: |
Re: install-sh -C |
Date: |
Sun, 22 Oct 2006 21:14:31 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) |
* Akim Demaille wrote on Sun, Oct 22, 2006 at 07:10:20PM CEST:
>
> >
> >>+ then
> >>+ # No need to copy, that's the same file.
> >>+ continue
> >>+ else :; fi } &&
> >
> >There has to be a semicolon before the }, I think.
>
> I don't you do: I think the semi-colon is required to end the command
> just as you would after a "test" before the "then". But here, it's
> a shell syntactic construct, not an "open" command.
Ah, ok. I didn't know there was a difference. Thanks!
> Anyway, I don't think it can harm, so I added it.
> >I have some problems with these definitions. If there are several
> >files that have the youngest time stamp, then the order depends on
> >the locale.
>
> Nia? How can the locale change the order to time stamps?
Only if the time stamps are the same:
$ touch a B
$ LC_ALL=C ls -1t
B
a
$ ls -1t
a
B
$ locale | grep COLL
LC_COLLATE="de_DE.UTF-8"
> Anyway, here if there are several "youngest", then something is wrong.
> That trick is used in many places, including Automake's tests.
Yes. And about half the $sleep's in tests/aclocal7.test can be thrown
out if `ls -1t' were not used, but `find -newer'. I added some in the
2006-05-10 change. The corresponding discussion where this came up was:
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/automake-patches/2006-09/msg00026.html
> >Yuck. Stepan suggested `find -newer' as one way out in the case we
> >ran into this, I think.
>
> I fail to see why it would solve anything: why should find avoid
> nondeterminism due to equality of time stamps?
ls sorts equal-time files by locale. `find -newer' can tell you if what
you think is the newest (or oldest) file really is.
> >Otherwise there need to be even more "$sleep"s in the test suite over
> >the time, and they already slow it down noticeably.
>
> Really? Where should I add some?
Oh, I didn't mean to imply your specific test. But already some tests
have needed updates exposed by faster machines.
> --- tests/install2.test 14 May 2005 20:28:55 -0000 1.14
> +++ tests/install2.test 22 Oct 2006 17:09:52 -0000
> @@ -21,8 +21,9 @@
> # Test for bug in `make dist'
> # From Pavel Roskin.
>
> +set -e
> required=gzip
> -. ./defs || exit 1
> +. ./defs
I don't think `defs' is written to be `set -e' clean. At least all
other tests only enable it after sourcing defs.
Cheers,
Ralf
- install-sh -C, Akim Demaille, 2006/10/22
- Re: install-sh -C, Ralf Wildenhues, 2006/10/22
- Re: install-sh -C, Akim Demaille, 2006/10/22
- Re: install-sh -C,
Ralf Wildenhues <=
- Re: install-sh -C, Akim Demaille, 2006/10/23
- Re: install-sh -C, Ralf Wildenhues, 2006/10/23
- Re: install-sh -C, Ralf Wildenhues, 2006/10/23
- Re: install-sh -C, Akim Demaille, 2006/10/25
- Re: install-sh -C, Stepan Kasal, 2006/10/25
- Re: install-sh -C, Akim Demaille, 2006/10/27
- set -e glitches (was: install-sh -C), Ralf Wildenhues, 2006/10/26