Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 02:59:50 -0700 (PDT) From: GESBBB <gesbbb@yahoo.com> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Problem with Bash-4 and $(command) syntax Message-ID: <887176.71382.qm@web32105.mail.mud.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <721111.30542.qm@web39104.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <721111.30542.qm@web39104.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> From: bf <bf2006a@yahoo.com>=0A=A0=0A> > > {Problem with Bash-4 and $(com=
mand) ...}:=0A> > [...]=0A> > > I found the same problem, and have reverted=
to=0A> > >=A0 bash3.2 until it's sorted out. =0A> >=0A> > See if the follo=
wing helps.=0A> >=0A> > http://tiswww.case.edu/php/chet/bash/COMPAT=0A>; >=
=0A> > Especially:=0A> >=0A> > 38. Since bash-4.0 now follows Posix rules f=
or finding the =0A> > closing=0A> > delimiter of a $() command substitution=
, it will not behave as > previous=0A> > versions did, but will catch more =
syntax and parsing errors =0A> > before=0A> > spawning a subshell to evalua=
te the command substitution.=0A> >=0A> >Eray=0A> =0A> Yes, the above is tru=
e.=A0 But many of the examples cited=0A> by people noticing this problem ar=
e perfectly valid and=0A> _should_ work.=A0 The problem is that the port's =
parser is =0A> broken, owing in part to incompatibilities between the =0A> =
system yacc currently used to build the parser and GNU=0A> bison, which is =
used by the people who write bash.=A0 This=0A> is true of both shells/bash =
and shells/bash3, but is more=0A> noticeable in shells/bash.=A0 A fix has b=
een proposed, and patches=0A> are available, in the follow-up to:=0A> =0A> =
http://www.FreeBSD.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=3Dports/101230=0A>; =0A> The port=
's maintainer has been reluctant to switch to bison,=0A> so this may not be=
the solution that is ultimately used to=0A> fix the port, but you can use =
these in the meantime.=0A=0AUntil a fix has been put in place, I would sugg=
est that a notice be placed in UPDATING that Bash-4 is not completely funct=
ional and its use is not recommended. Better yet, maybe the port should jus=
t be marked "BROKEN", since it clearly is. I personally would never have in=
stalled it had I been aware of the problems it is causing.=A0 IMHO, it shou=
ld have been tested more completely before being released into the ports sy=
stem.=0A=0A-- =0AJerry
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?887176.71382.qm>