[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Tiger-devel] [RFC] Diferences between 'empty and set' and 'unset' v
From: |
Nicolas François |
Subject: |
Re: [Tiger-devel] [RFC] Diferences between 'empty and set' and 'unset' variables |
Date: |
Sat, 20 Sep 2003 04:12:40 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.4i |
On Fri, Sep 19, 2003 at 02:08:25AM +0200, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 16, 2003 at 10:04:37AM +0200, Nicolas François wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > Here are some patches and comments all related to tests of empty
> > variables. In some cases, I think a difference can be found between a
> > variable set to "" and an unset variable.
>
> You might be right but it probably depends on context.
I have to confess that I mainly posted these patches to point out the
problem.
> > -- 08_initdefs_haveallvars_allow_empty_vars.patch ----------------------
> > What should haveallvars do with variables empty but set?
>
> IMHO it should exit just like if it's undefined. I'm adding your patch but
> providing a different error message for the other case. Notice that some
> tests will not work properly if a variable checked by haveallvars() turns
> out to be empty.
You're right. And there would probably be no variable tested by
haveallvars which could be empty (not checked).
BTW, there were an error in my patch. I attach a new patch for
initdefs (initdefs_haveallvars.diff)
I also had another patch for initdefs:
in function haveallcmds, the command is tested for execution by a '-f'.
Souldn't '-x' used instead (or TESTEXEC)? Is it for systems that doesn't
support '-x' (does it exist?)?
A patch is attached in case you think it's worth being applied.
(initdefs_exec.diff)
I have the same question for config (TESTEXEC set to '-f'). I attach
01_config_exec.patch just in case.
Regards,
--
Nekral
initdefs_haveallvars.diff
Description: Text document
initdefs_exec.diff
Description: Text document
01_config_exec.patch
Description: Text document