Re: Directs makeinfo and texi2html output to logfiles (issue 5645046)

[David Kastrup]

"Phil Holmes" <address@hidden> writes:

> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: <address@hidden>
> To: <address@hidden>; <address@hidden>; <address@hidden>
> Cc: <address@hidden>; <address@hidden>
> Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2012 12:56 PM
> Subject: Re: Directs makeinfo and texi2html output to logfiles (issue
> 5645046)
>
>
>> I'm not sure why the run-and-check.sh script needs to be so complicated.
>
> Nor me.  But I did a lot of experimentation to get it to work.  I
> think all the extra redirection and the exec stuff is required because
> you're running a command inside a shell script, and so simply trying:
>
> command 2>&1
>
> doesn't work.

Why wouldn't it?

> There's lots of stuff on the net about needing to use exec.

There is a whole lot of nonsense "on the net".  That does not mean
anything.

> If you don't use eval, the shell tries to run the first "command" it
> sees, which is "DEPTH=$(depth)/../" and this fails as a command.  So
> the way round that was to use eval.

This seriously sounds rather fishy.

> As you know, I'm no unix script expert.  But I'd be surprised if there
> was a simpler way to actually make this work.

I'm a unix script expert so to say, but I can't keep up with running the
whole show.  I am already juggling too many tasks related to LilyPond,
and all of the juggling costs more time than the individual tasks do
since it breaks concentration, and I still have to write up a
publication for the LilyPond Report explaning to people why they should
bother paying me for tasks I am doing "voluntarily" because noone
*fscking* else does and they are the right thing to do.  I am currently
quitting my choir (just need to get the outfit through the dry cleaner)
because I have been told that it is indecent of me to mention the
efforts I take for doing decidedly more than my share of the work
because "you would not need to do this if you did not want to".  What a
convenient excuse to grab all one can get.

Sorry, you (singular) don't deserve this.  I am just in a bad mood.

>From the sounds of it, it would appear to be that you are doing
something too complex here.  Most certainly
command 2>&1
should work, and you can group commands like
{
  command
  command
  command
} 2>&1

as well if you don't want to patch up single commands.

-- 
David Kastrup