Re: [PATCH] test: switch to POSIX compliance symlink check

From: Danh Doan <congdanhqx@gmail.com>
Date: Dec 22, 2019, 02:07 UTC
Message-ID: <20191222020753.GA14802@danh.dev>
In-Reply-To: <CAPUEsphavRpYeJGLY73rzy18VFvTUfhsb=y6pC53e8b9aEbfRw@mail.gmail.com>

On 2019-12-21 12:45:43-0800, Carlo Arenas <carenas@gmail.com> wrote:

Show 9 quoted lines

> On Sat, Dec 21, 2019 at 8:50 AM Doan Tran Cong Danh
> <congdanhqx@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > POSIX doesn't specify `-L' flag for test(1), POSIX specify `-h' for
> > checking symlink instead.
> 
> https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/test.html
> 
> seems to indicate both are valid and equivalent

It's seems like I've misread my manpages. Somehow, I couldn't find the mention of `-L' when I tried it last time. Please ignore this patch.

Show 20 quoted lines

> 
> > While most shells and test(1) implementation provides both `-L' and
> > `-h' for checking symlink,
> > OpenBSD and NetBSD says we shouldn't rely on its existence. [1]
> 
> and macOS (from FreeBSD[1]) says the exact opposite :
> 
>      -h file     True if file exists and is a symbolic link.  This operator
>                    is retained for compatibility with previous versions of
>                    this program.  Do not rely on its existence; use -L
>                    instead.
> 
> agree it would be a good idea to use only one for consistency though,
> but it might be in that case a good idea to add it as a
> "recommendation" by adding this rule in t/check-non-portable-shell.pl
> or something like that IMHO
> 
> Carlo
> 
> [1] https://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?test

-- 
Danh