On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 11:20 PM, Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, May 04, 2016 at 08:17:38PM +0200, Armin Kunaschik wrote: > >> I'm trying to compile/test/use git 2.8.2 on AIX 6.1 with no bash available. >> /bin/sh is a hard link to /bin/ksh which is a ksh88, a posix shell. >> Is this supposed to work? > > We aim for a practical subset of Bourne shells, including bash, dash, > ash, ksh, etc. There's at least one Bourne-ish shell known not to work, > which is Solaris /bin/sh[1]. POSIX is usually a good guide, but we aim > for practical portability more than adhering strictly to the standards > document. > > I've tested with mksh in the past (though it's possible that we've > introduced a regression since then). But I think we've run into problems > with ksh93[2]. I don't know about ksh88, or what construct it doesn't > like. It may or may not be easy to work around. In general ksh (88 or 93) is posix compliant... and bash is moving away from posix. :-) But I know what you mean. >> As an example: make test fails on nearly every t34* test and on tests >> which contain rebase. >> The installation of bash (and manually changing the shebang to >> /bin/bash) "fixes" all rebase test failures. So obviously git-rebase >> is not portable at some point. > > Right. Any modern-ish Bourne shell will do, so moving to bash is one way > to fix it. My last compile of git 2.2.2 did far better than the current 2.8.2. So it looks like there were more recent changes that broke portability. >> Does it make any sense to put work into making these scripts portable, >> that is, work with posix shells? > > Maybe. :) If you can find what it is that ksh88 is unhappy with, we can > see how painful it is to adapt to. But given my looking into ksh93 in > [2], I suspect it will be easier to just use a more modern shell. Regarding [2] this was a bug which was fixed quite fast. To me this is no real showstopper. Modernity of ksh93 depends on the letter after the 93 :-) >> And, as last resort, is it possible to configure git use bash in some >> or all shell scripts? > > You can set SHELL_PATH in your config.mak file. I tried a build with SHELL_PATH=/bin/bash. Many problems "went away". Others appeared. I'll give it a few more days to look into it. First finding: make test does not make it through t3513-revert-submodule.sh anymore. The test is not portable since it uses the z-flags of GNU-tar. When -z is removed, (and extension is changed back to tar) everything runs and tests smoothly. Is this report enough to start the magic to change things? Regards, Armin -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html