Re: t0005-signals.sh fails with ksh

From: brian m. carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>
Date: May 9, 2015, 20:01 UTC
Message-ID: <20150509200104.GB225482@vauxhall.crustytoothpaste.net>
In-Reply-To: <20150508212146.GA16614@peff.net>

On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 05:21:47PM -0400, Jeff King wrote:

Show 17 quoted lines

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

I use zsh. It's possible to convince it to be more POSIXy by saying "emulate sh" or invoking it via a symlink called sh. However, having said that, I don't recommend it. I set /bin/sh to zsh on my Debian system and a lot of things broke. Early versions of Mac OS X did that, too, and they stopped because it was very broken.

As for ksh, I don't know whether you want to kill support for just ksh93 or mksh as well. I've generally had good experience with mksh as /bin/sh when I've tried it, and it's at least semi-supported in Debian because it meets Debian's POSIX-plus requirements.

-- 
brian m. carlson / brian with sandals: Houston, Texas, US
+1 832 623 2791 | http://www.crustytoothpaste.net/~bmc | My opinion only
OpenPGP: RSA v4 4096b: 88AC E9B2 9196 305B A994 7552 F1BA 225C 0223 B187