GNU bug report logs - #67268
[PATCH] texinfo: add pointer about combining tests

Previous Next

To add a comment to this bug, you must first unarchive it, by sending
a message to control AT debbugs.gnu.org, with unarchive 67268 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 67268 AT debbugs.gnu.org in the normal way.

Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.

Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Karl Berry <karl <at> freefriends.org>
To: michael <at> i3wm.org
Cc: automake-patches <at> gnu.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] texinfo: add pointer about combining tests
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2023 19:27:38 -0700

Hi Michael,


    Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2016 18:35:53 +0200
    From: Michael Stapelberg <michael <at> i3wm.org>
    To: automake-patches <at> gnu.org
    Subject: [PATCH] texinfo: add pointer about combining tests

    https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/automake-patches/2016-10/msg00002.html

Seven years late(r), but I did finally merge (a version of) your
suggestion of a portability note in the Automake manual about &&
vs. test -a, as below.  Thanks! --karl


doc: mention shell operators preferred over `test` options.

* doc/automake.texi (Usage of Conditionals): mention that shell
operators (&&, ||, ()) are preferred over `test` options (-a, -o,
\(\)). Idea and POSIX url reference from Michael Stapelberg,
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/automake-patches/2016-10/msg00002.html
diff --git a/doc/automake.texi b/doc/automake.texi
index 51a3c3dbe..635bdd28c 100644
--- a/doc/automake.texi
+++ b/doc/automake.texi
@@ -11118,6 +11118,14 @@ must arrange for @emph{every} @code{AM_CONDITIONAL} to be invoked every
 time @command{configure} is run.  If @code{AM_CONDITIONAL} is run
 conditionally (e.g., in a shell @code{if} statement), then the result
 will confuse @command{automake}.
+
+For portability, it is best to use shell operators @code{&&} and
+@code{||} and parentheses, when constructing a compound
+@var{condition} using the @command{test} command, and not the
+@code{-a} and @code{-o} options and parentheses as options to
+@command{test}, all of which have been marked obsolescent by POSIX
+(@url{https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/test.html#tag_20_128_161}).
+The name @code{test} is also more portable than @code{[}.
 @end defmac

 @cindex @option{--enable-debug}, example

compile finished at Sat Nov 18 18:25:16 2023

Message #10 received at 67268-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Karl Berry <karl <at> freefriends.org>
To: 67268-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2023 14:36:48 -0700

Message #15 received at 67268 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Mike Frysinger <vapier <at> gentoo.org>
To: Karl Berry <karl <at> freefriends.org>
Cc: 67268 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, michael <at> i3wm.org
Subject: Re: [bug#67268] [PATCH] texinfo: add pointer about combining tests
Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2023 04:40:34 -0500

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On 18 Nov 2023 19:27, Karl Berry wrote:
> Hi Michael,
> 
> 
>     Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2016 18:35:53 +0200
>     From: Michael Stapelberg <michael <at> i3wm.org>
>     To: automake-patches <at> gnu.org
>     Subject: [PATCH] texinfo: add pointer about combining tests
> 
>     https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/automake-patches/2016-10/msg00002.html
> 
> Seven years late(r), but I did finally merge (a version of) your
> suggestion of a portability note in the Automake manual about &&
> vs. test -a, as below.  Thanks! --karl
> 
> 
> doc: mention shell operators preferred over `test` options.

is the automake manual the best place for this ?  the autoconf manual has a
very extensive "Portable Shell Programming" chapter:
https://www.gnu.org/savannah-checkouts/gnu/autoconf/manual/autoconf-2.71/html_node/Portable-Shell.html

seems like it'd be better to extend that section and link it from here.
-mike

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #18 received at 67268 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Karl Berry <karl <at> freefriends.org>
To: vapier <at> gentoo.org
Cc: 67268 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, michael <at> i3wm.org
Subject: Re: [bug#67268] [PATCH] texinfo: add pointer about combining tests
Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2023 15:09:47 -0700

    very extensive "Portable Shell Programming" chapter:
    https://www.gnu.org/savannah-checkouts/gnu/autoconf/manual/autoconf-2.71/html_node/Portable-Shell.html

I know. The Autoconf manual already describes this issue in detail.
The point of the brief mention in the Automake manual is because it is
precisely the place and the problem that are rather likely to come up
in practice.

I see I failed to link to the Autoconf node, though. I'll add that. -k

Message #21 received at 67268 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Mike Frysinger <vapier <at> gentoo.org>
To: Karl Berry <karl <at> freefriends.org>
Cc: 67268 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, michael <at> i3wm.org
Subject: Re: [bug#67268] [PATCH] texinfo: add pointer about combining tests
Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2023 20:34:59 -0500

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On 02 Dec 2023 15:09, Karl Berry wrote:
>     very extensive "Portable Shell Programming" chapter:
>     https://www.gnu.org/savannah-checkouts/gnu/autoconf/manual/autoconf-2.71/html_node/Portable-Shell.html
> 
> I know. The Autoconf manual already describes this issue in detail.
> The point of the brief mention in the Automake manual is because it is
> precisely the place and the problem that are rather likely to come up
> in practice.
> 
> I see I failed to link to the Autoconf node, though. I'll add that. -k

breadcrumbs in the automake manual is ok before tossing them to autoconf, but i
would make it more brief than we have now.  like drop references to the POSIX
state and just leave it as discouraged in favor of the macros for portability.
-mike

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #24 received at 67268 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Karl Berry <karl <at> freefriends.org>
To: 67268 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [bug#67268] [PATCH] texinfo: add pointer about combining tests
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2023 10:51:37 -0700

I guess I don't see any harm in keeping the link to POSIX. Perhaps it
should be in the Autoconf manual, but either way seems ok to me. Since
the OP went to the trouble of looking it up. --best, karl.

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.