Re: t0005-signals.sh fails with ksh

From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: May 8, 2015, 21:21 UTC
Message-ID: <20150508212146.GA16614@peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqwq0iixcs.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com>

On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 02:16:19PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 5 quoted lines

> Yeah, ksh has gone too far and now is on the other side, I would
> have to say.  Introducing new keywords and semantics to let its
> users use new features (e.g. "let") is one thing, but breaking a
> valid POSIX shell construct and interpreting it in an incompatible
> way is going just too far for it to be treated as a Bourne variant.

Yeah, especially after my followup email, I think I'm not on the fence anymore.

> I wonder if zsh is in the same league.  Do we support people who do
> SHELL_PATH=/bin/zsh and bend over backwards when it breaks?

I tried "make SHELL_PATH=zsh test", but had trouble seeing the test output for all of the errors being spewed to stderr. ;)

Certainly this:

  $ zsh ./t0000-basic.sh -v -i
  > [...]
  test_cmp:1: command not found: diff -u
  not ok 4 - pretend we have a fully passing test suite

is not especially encouraging (it looks like running "$FOO bar" does not word-split $FOO). I am not a zsh user, though, so there may be ways to convince it to be more POSIX-y (e.g., just calling it as "sh").

-Peff