[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Yet Another test option

From: Chet Ramey
Subject: Re: Yet Another test option
Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2011 16:35:34 -0400
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; en-US; rv: Gecko/20110616 Thunderbird/3.1.11

On 7/6/11 1:52 PM, Bruce Korb wrote:

>>> I would not expect "sort -V" and a version test to disagree.
>> The code that coreutils uses for 'sort -V' is part of gnulib - the
>> filevercmp module.  That file (filevercmp.c) is pretty stable nowadays,
>> with the last algorithmic change being in April 2009 and no recent
>> complaints about unexpected behavior [...]
>> However, I don't see any reason to add extensions to coreutils' test
>> unless we have some agreement that we plan to add the same extension to
>> other places like the bash builtin test at the same time.  Since we've
>> already demonstrated that version comparisons are a pretty trivial
>> wrapper around sort, I'm not seeing much justification in favor of
>> bloating test to make version testing builtin.
> bash will when coreutils does and coreutils will when bash does.
> OK.  I don't really care a too terrible lot, but I do think that
> if folks writing Lustre shell scripts don't get it right, then it
> is an error prone comparison that probably ought to have a well
> architected (easy to use) solution.  Perhaps just me?

Again, that's an argument for a solid solution that Lustre and others
can incorporate into their projects, not something that has to go
into coreutils or the shell.  It could even be a C program wrapper
around the module from gnulib (though those are notoriously difficult
to separate from the rest of the library).


``The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.'' - Chaucer
                 ``Ars longa, vita brevis'' - Hippocrates
Chet Ramey, ITS, CWRU    address@hidden    http://cnswww.cns.cwru.edu/~chet/

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]