Bug#36552: marked as done (gratuitous introduction of bashisms in devpts.sh)
Your message dated 2 May 1999 18:52:59 -0000
with message-id <[🔎] 19990502185259.25209.qmail@master.debian.org>
and subject line Bug#36552: fixed in glibc 2.1.1-2
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'm
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Ian Jackson
(administrator, Debian bugs database)
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 22 Apr 1999 22:12:36 +0000
Received: (qmail 28319 invoked from network); 22 Apr 1999 22:12:35 -0000
Received: from blastula.phys.columbia.edu (128.59.132.160)
by master.debian.org with SMTP; 22 Apr 1999 22:12:35 -0000
Received: from localhost (zack@localhost)
by blastula.phys.columbia.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3/2) with ESMTP id SAA10016
for <submit@bugs.debian.org>; Thu, 22 Apr 1999 18:12:31 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <199904222212.SAA10016@blastula.phys.columbia.edu>
To: submit@bugs.debian.org
Subject: gratuitous introduction of bashisms in devpts.sh
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 18:12:31 -0400
From: Zack Weinberg <zack@rabi.columbia.edu>
Package: libc6
Version: 2.1.1-1
This is the diff between devpts.sh from 2.1.1-0.2 and 2.1.1-1:
--- /etc/init.d/devpts.sh Wed Apr 7 18:29:44 1999
+++ /etc/init.d/devpts.sh.dpkg-dist Tue Apr 20 20:03:15 1999
@@ -8,11 +8,11 @@
2.1.1[123]* | 2.2* | 2.3*)
if grep devpts /proc/filesystems > /dev/null 2>&1
then
- if [ ! -c /dev/ptmx ]; then
+ if ! [ -c /dev/ptmx ]; then
mknod /dev/ptmx c 5 2
chmod 666 /dev/ptmx
fi
- if [ ! -d /dev/pts ]; then
+ if ! [ -d /dev/pts ]; then
mkdir /dev/pts
chmod 755 /dev/pts
fi
The change makes absolutely no difference in the semantics of the
script AFAICT, but "if ! ..." is a bash extension which should not be
used in init scripts. What was wrong with the old version?
zw
Reply to: