autoconf-patches
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: [PATCH 0/5] more aggressive on ${a:-b}


From: Ralf Wildenhues
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] more aggressive on ${a:-b}
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 19:59:29 +0200
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2010-04-22)

* Eric Blake wrote on Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 07:50:12PM CEST:
> On 08/26/2010 11:27 AM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> >* Eric Blake wrote on Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 01:18:16AM CEST:
> >>http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2009-04/msg00531.html
> >
> >I'm sure somebody thought that it would be a good idea to print that
> >warning, I can't imagine any reason that wouldn't outweigh its downsides
> >now though.  Do you have a link to the corresponding implementation
> >discussion?  Thanks.
> 
> The best I could find was the release announcement where it first appeared:
> http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/2008-12/msg00225.html
[...]
> 
> Since the one-time warning goes to the terminal rather than stderr,
> it is unlikely to impact script behavior (that is, you can't capture
> it via redirections, only to stumble later because you captured more
> text than planned); conversely, since it goes straight to the
> terminal, it is highly visible to the user if a package accidentally
> does anything that accessed a string containing \ in a context of a
> file name.

Thanks for the link and the explanation.  Yes, that makes it a little
less dangerous for script interference; a non-resettable feature is hard
to test, though, so adding a reset button would be nice.  ;-)

> >If you (still) need somebody to test IRIX, OSF, Solaris 2.6, AIX, please
> >ping me.  I definitely would feel a bit less worried if these changes
> >were thoroughly tested before the next release.
> 
> Agreed that more testing would be nice.

Well, let me know when you're done with patches and have added testsuite
exposure, and still don't have the needed system access.

Cheers,
Ralf



reply via email to

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