Re: [RFC] test: Old shells and physical paths

From: David Aguilar <davvid@gmail.com>
Date: Dec 20, 2012, 05:01 UTC
Message-ID: <CAJDDKr78ugSo9hNerHO0Y46_bSzLJWznB3E3+6H98NjMtBwHsw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAEvUa7=_iyXxaaRs3WtxZOy5PNnncG-iMAUNkCMLJ19ZtReqaw@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 6:28 PM, David Michael <fedora.dm0@gmail.com> wrote:

Show 13 quoted lines

> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 12:17 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>> Is "here is a nickel, get a better shell" an option?
>
> It is, somewhat.  There is a pre-built port of GNU bash 2.03 for the
> platform, but I was trying to see how far things could go with the
> OS's supported shell before having to bring in unsupported
> dependencies.  Unfortunately, I do not believe the OS fully conforms
> to POSIX.1-2001 yet, so that means no "-P" or "-L" without going
> rogue.
>
> I'll carry test fixes for this platform locally.

Do you know if the differences are relegated to "cd", or do other common commands such as awk, grep, sed, mktemp, expr, etc. have similar issues?

I wonder if it'd be helpful to have a low-numbered test that checks the basics needed by the scripted Porcelains and test suite. It would give us an easy way to answer these questions, and could be a good way to document (in code) the capabilities we expect.

-- 
David