Sender: rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk
Message-ID: <39986F0F.163C0FDD@phekda.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 23:13:35 +0100
From: Richard Dawe <rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.14 i586)
X-Accept-Language: de,fr
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: DJGPP workers <djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com>
Subject: Resend: Problems with depcomp from fileutils 4.0x & bash 2.03
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com

Hello.

I'm resending this, just for reference, because it seemed to have been
chopped in half.

Richard Dawe wrote:
> I tried to build fileutils 4.0x at the weekend, but I hit a problem with
> depcomp. With some help from Prashant and Eli the problem was narrowed
> down to bash 2.03 (thanks guys!). This is actually a problem earlier
> encountered in the djgpp-workers thread "Porting problems with Sh-utils
> (beta)" - the first mail is dated Sat, 8 Apr 2000 18:49:49 +0500 on my
> system.
> 
> Here is the problem: when passing parameters to a command using
> backticks, the supplied environment is ignored. E.g.
> 
> a=foo ./someprog `echo hello`
> 
> will not pass $a to 'someprog'.
> 
> Here's a simple test program:
> 
> ---BEGIN echo-a---
> echo Args: $*
> echo $a
> ---END echo-a---
> 
> Here's an example session showing the problem:
> 
> ---START results.txt---
> bash203-2.03$ ls -al
> total 5
> drwxr-xr-x   2 rich     root           64 Aug 14 20:59 ./
> drwxr-xr-x  37 rich     root         2400 Mar 19 13:29 ../
> -rw-r--r--   1 rich     root           24 Aug 14 21:00 echo-a
> bash203-2.03$ test -f echo-a; echo $?
> 0
> bash203-2.03$ a=foo ./echo-a
> Args:
> foo
> bash203-2.03$ a=foo ./echo-a `test -f echo-a`
> Args:
> 
> bash203-2.03$ a=foo ./echo-a `test -f ./echo-a`
> Args:
> 
> bash203-2.03$ a=foo /bin/bash203.exe echo-a `test -f ./echo-a`
> Args:
> 
> bash203-2.03$ a=foo /bin/bash203.exe echo-a
> Args:
> foo
> ---END results.txt---
> 
> Please note that my bash 2.03 was installed in /bin, because I have beta
> 5c of bash 2.04 installed. The second set of invocations is to show that
> bash 2.03 is actually being using when doing './echo-a'.
> 
> Thankfully this problem does not exist in bash 2.04 beta 5c. Are there
> any plans to fix this problem in bash 2.03?
> 
> Thanks, bye, Rich =]
> 
> --
> Richard Dawe
> [ mailto:richdawe AT bigfoot DOT com | http://www.bigfoot.com/~richdawe/ ]