Re: [PATCH] t7800 readlink not found
- From
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
- Date
- Jun 21, 2016, 18:39 UTC
- Message-ID
- <xmqqy45ypesl.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <CALR6jEgAtvuecJ4OPOAcDGh3o02oM_WP5_CM8Y52eW2hjuLDNg@mail.gmail.com>
Armin Kunaschik <megabreit@googlemail.com> writes:
Show 37 quoted lines
> On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 7:51 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote: >> Torsten Bögershausen <tboegi@web.de> writes: >> >>>> diff --git a/t/t7800-difftool.sh b/t/t7800-difftool.sh >>>> index 7ce4cd7..905035c 100755 >>>> --- a/t/t7800-difftool.sh >>>> +++ b/t/t7800-difftool.sh >>>> @@ -446,7 +446,7 @@ write_script .git/CHECK_SYMLINKS <<\EOF >>>> for f in file file2 sub/sub >>>> do >>>> echo "$f" >>>> - readlink "$2/$f" >>>> + ls -ld "$2/$f" | sed -e 's/.* -> //' >>>> done >actual >>>> EOF >>>> >>> I don't know how portable #ls -ld" really is. >> >> The parts with mode bits, nlinks, uid, gid, size, and date part do >> have some variations. For example, we have been burned on ACL >> enabled systems having some funny suffix after the usual mode bits >> stuff. >> >> However, as far as this test is concerned, I do not think "how >> portable is the output from ls -ld" is an especially relevant >> question. None of the things we expect early in the output (the >> fields I enumerated in the previous paragraph) would contain " -> ". >> And we know that we do not use a filename that has " -> " (or "->") >> as a substring in our tests. >> >> We don't have to use readlink, even on platforms where we do have >> readlink. Building the conditional to be checked at runtime and >> providing a shell function read_link that uses "ls -ld | sed" or >> "readlink" depending on the runtime check is wasteful. > > Just a short, curious question: Is this patch to be accepted/included some time? > I didn't see it in 2.8.4 nor 2.9.0. Maybe it just fell off the table...
Yes, I think this fell off the table as I was waiting for some kind of agreement or counter-proposal, neither of which came and the thread was forgotten.
Unless Torsten still has strong objections (or better yet, a better implementation), I am inclined to queue it as-is.
Thanks for pinging the thread.