Bug#243885: marked as done (fnmatch breaks on [\]])
Your message dated Fri, 16 Apr 2004 08:09:05 +1000
with message-id <20040415220905.GA3083@gondor.apana.org.au>
and subject line Bug#240887: Package building problem.
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--------------------------------------
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 29 Mar 2004 19:25:32 +0000
>From Q@ping.be Mon Mar 29 11:25:32 2004
Return-path: <Q@ping.be>
Received: from adicia.telenet-ops.be [195.130.132.56]
by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 1B82O4-0000xv-00; Mon, 29 Mar 2004 11:25:32 -0800
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
by adicia.telenet-ops.be (Postfix) with SMTP id 13EDE44084
for <submit@bugs.debian.org>; Mon, 29 Mar 2004 21:25:31 +0200 (MEST)
Received: from kabel.telenet.be (D5767DEE.kabel.telenet.be [213.118.125.238])
by adicia.telenet-ops.be (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA80D44269
for <submit@bugs.debian.org>; Mon, 29 Mar 2004 21:25:30 +0200 (MEST)
Received: by kabel.telenet.be (Postfix, from userid 501)
id 43478158AD5; Mon, 29 Mar 2004 21:25:30 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 21:25:30 +0200
From: Kurt Roeckx <Q@ping.be>
To: submit@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Package building problem.
Message-ID: <20040329192530.GA11322@ping.be>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i
Sender: Q@ping.be
Delivered-To: submit@bugs.debian.org
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2004_03_25
(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-7.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_PACKAGE
autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2004_03_25
X-Spam-Level:
Package: tetex-bin
Version: 2.0.2-10
There is a problem making the package. I get:
cp debian/update-texmf.8 debian/tetex-bin/usr/share/man/man8/
cp: cannot create regular file `debian/tetex-bin/usr/share/man/man8/update-texmf.8': No such file or directory
It seems the debian/tetex-bin/usr/share/man/man8 dir is missing.
I've worked aroud this problem by creating that dir.
Kurt
---------------------------------------
Received: (at 243885-done) by bugs.debian.org; 15 Apr 2004 22:09:20 +0000
>From herbert@gondor.apana.org.au Thu Apr 15 15:09:20 2004
Return-path: <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
Received: from arnor.apana.org.au [203.14.152.115] (mail)
by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 1BEF2t-0000CV-00; Thu, 15 Apr 2004 15:09:20 -0700
Received: from gondolin.me.apana.org.au ([192.168.0.6] ident=mail)
by arnor.apana.org.au with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian))
id 1BEF2m-0007MU-00; Fri, 16 Apr 2004 08:09:12 +1000
Received: from herbert by gondolin.me.apana.org.au with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian))
id 1BEF2f-0000pG-00; Fri, 16 Apr 2004 08:09:05 +1000
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 08:09:05 +1000
To: Colin Watson <cjwatson@debian.org>, 240887@bugs.debian.org
Cc: Frank K?ster <frank@kuesterei.ch>, Kurt Roeckx <Q@ping.be>,
243885-done@bugs.debian.org, tetex-bin@packages.debian.org,
autoconf@packages.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#240887: Package building problem.
Message-ID: <20040415220905.GA3083@gondor.apana.org.au>
References: <20040409192919.GA13873@ping.be> <87ptadqoqh.fsf@alhambra.bioz.unibas.ch> <20040412150846.GA22974@ping.be> <87hdvpp4sc.fsf@alhambra.bioz.unibas.ch> <20040412163112.GA23168@ping.be> <87vfk40vzv.fsf@alhambra.bioz.unibas.ch> <20040413172054.GA26397@ping.be> <87r7uqlqii.fsf@alhambra.bioz.unibas.ch> <[🔎] 20040415114005.GA31489@gondor.apana.org.au> <[🔎] 20040415141058.GA21647@riva.ucam.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <[🔎] 20040415141058.GA21647@riva.ucam.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1+cvs20040105i
From: Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
Delivered-To: 243885-done@bugs.debian.org
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2004_03_25
(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_BUG_NUMBER,
VALID_BTS_CONTROL autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2004_03_25
X-Spam-Level:
X-CrossAssassin-Score: 3
clone 240887 -1
retitle 240887 backslashes are literal in shell bracket expressions
reassign 240887 tetex-bin
reassign -1 autoconf
quit
On Thu, Apr 15, 2004 at 03:10:58PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
>
> fnmatch(3) references glob(7), which says:
>
> Character classes
> An expression `[...]' where the first character after the lead-
> ing `[' is not an `!' matches a single character, namely any of
> the characters enclosed by the brackets. The string enclosed
> by the brackets cannot be empty; therefore `]' can be allowed
> between the brackets, provided that it is the first character.
> (Thus, `[][!]' matches the three characters `[', `]' and `!'.)
>
> ...
>
> One can remove the special meaning of `?', `*' and `[' by pre-
> ceding them by a backslash, or, in case this is part of a shell
> command line, enclosing them in quotes. Between brackets these
> characters stand for themselves. Thus, `[[?*\]' matches the
> four characters `[', `?', `*' and `\'.
>
> Accordingly, I believe that the pattern in your example means
> "backslash, followed by a, followed by closing square bracket", not what
> you think it means.
You're quite right. This is reaffirmed by the POSIX document for
basic regular expressions, which is what POSIX uses to define
shell patterns.
Therefore tetex-bin and autoconf will need to be fixed instead to
not use backslashes in [] expressions.
--
Debian GNU/Linux 3.0 is out! ( http://www.debian.org/ )
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
Reply to: