On Wednesday 06 April 2016, Isaac Dunham wrote: > On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 06:40:21PM +0100, Ruediger Meier wrote: > > On Wednesday 06 April 2016, Isaac Dunham wrote: > > > On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 01:33:58PM +0100, Ruediger Meier wrote: > > > > On Wednesday 06 April 2016, Karel Zak wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 12:30:17PM +0200, Ruediger Meier wrote: > > > > > > We want to to use it for other tests without depending on > > > > > > gnu md5sum and without cut or awk. > > > > > > > > > > It does not seem like anything critical, both patches applied > > > > > to the next branch (will be in v2.29). Thanks. > > > > > > > > That's ok. These patches do not fix any existing problem yet. > > > > They are just one minor step to remove coreutils dependency > > > > from out tests. We would still need to fix usage of readlink, > > > > seq and truncate. > > > > > > Is this for the sake of something where you cannot expect *any* > > > coreutils-equivalent to be installed? > > > If you can't expect that, can you expect the build scripts to > > > work? > > > > Yes, autoconf/automake/libtool generate highly portable shell > > scripts. For example the configure script even checks whether there > > is a thread-safe "mkdir -p" available or what kind of sed is > > installed. > > Ah yes, I should have remembered that it checks that. ;) > http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/busybox/2004-January/044642.html > (The test is for "GNU sed version ..." rather than behavior.) > > > The only problems are usually caused by hand-written scripts like > > shell snippets in Makefile.am or our test scripts ;) > > > > Our tests depend on GNU extensions for md5sum, readlink, seq, > > truncate, find, xargs, tar, sed and the shell has to be bash. > > That's all not critical but at least nice to be fixed if it doesn't > > make our scripts too ugly. > > > > > I ask because md5sum, seq, and readlink are included in every set > > > of base utilities I'm aware of, including coreutils, busybox, > > > toybox, and even sbase (the 'suckless' base utilities). > > > That said, seq and md5sum are only specified in the LSB, and > > > readlink isn't even there. > > > > md5sum is special. It's not Posix and not available or completely > > different on non-Linux systems. > > Ah yes. Somehow I keep forgetting that util-linux needs to worry > about non-linux systems. I have to admit that IMO it would be ok to skip non-Linux support but personally I like portability and sometimes runs on other systems discovers theoretical or future bugs even for the major Linux target. > As far as I can tell, the BSDs use 'md5', which approximates the > desired output when run as 'md5 -r'; but your approach is better than > trying to coerce suitable output from diverse programs. > > > About seq, readlink and truncate: our test-suite is using > > non-portable GNU extenstions. I guess it would not run with > > busybox. You can similate that even with coreutils: > > > > $ POSIXLY_CORRECT=1 make check > > grep -rw seq tests/ reports only a series of invocations that resolve > to 'seq $START $END'; Yep, I've grepped that too a few hours ago. But I know for sure that our seq usage did not worked on OSX a few weeks ago. Maybe we've used float increment a some commits ago .. I don't remember. > however, one or two of them will probably break > due to the shell not working the same (parameter subsitution inside > shell aritmetic inside $().). > Similarly, -f is the only readlink option that seems to be used. > (Busybox supports this.) Unfortunately readlink -f is the most useful option of readlink. But probably we wouldn't need it always where we are using it right now. > Trying to run "make check", however, runs into busybox xargs not > supporting -P (needed for parallel tests). Could be fixed by checking for xargs -P on runtime, disable parallel tests otherwhise. But AFAIR missing xargs -r was also an issue. Generally I remember there are issues with find and xargs don't behave like Posix on all non-Unix systems. So for now it was easier to simply require well defined GNU findutils. > truncate is not POSIX, but it's relatively new. Could be re-replaced by dd but would be nice to check if it keeps the files sparse (dd seek=x). > > If you feel bored you may try to fix some of the mentioned GNUisms > > ;) > > I might. > Most likely, the biggest issue is bash. At least we explicitly require bash in the shebang. Maybe we could use #!/usr/bin/env bash .. to make it easier on systems where is no bash in /bin Making test scripts portable to /bin/sh would be really annoying I guess. Installing bash-4 is IMO much easier for the users than fixing all the other issues (coreutils, findutils, sed, tar). BTW our awk usage seems to be ok right now. cu, Rudi -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe util-linux" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
