Re: [PATCH] Again, do not change the mode of all directories below $HOME.

[Jim Meyering]

Ralf Wildenhues <address@hidden> wrote:
...
>> > Would the following not have sufficed, too?
>> >
>> >> -trap 'st=$?; cleanup_; d='"$t_"';
>> >> -    cd '"$test_dir_"' && chmod -R u+rwx "$d" && rm -rf "$d" && exit $st' >> >> 0
>> >   +trap 'st=$?; cleanup_; d="$t_";
>> >   +    cd "$test_dir_" && chmod -R u+rwx "$d" && rm -rf "$d" && exit $st' 0
>>
>> I don't see how that would change anything.  The cd is just to
>> get out of the directory we're about to remove.  It worked.
>> The chmod is what failed, operating on the prefix up to,
>> but not including the space.
>
> Hmm.  I think I fail to see what exactly the shell-under-quoting was
> then.  Could you be bothered to explain?  Thanks.

>From memory, ...
when building with a space-polluted build and/or source directory name,
there was at least one failure (or mere diagnostic leading to a directory
not being removed?) that I tracked down to the failure of that chmod
command.  The chmod diagnostic mentioned the prefix before the space.

>> > BTW, I see that you use 'local' in shell functions.  This isn't required
>> > to be supported by POSIX sh, and AFAIK won't work with some ksh variants,
>> > for example the "Version M 1993-12-28 r" on my GNU/Linux system, but
>> > also your test-lib.sh doesn't check for this capability.  I suggest to
>> > just avoid local variables, since you have only a couple anyway.  Should
>> > I write a patch to this end?
>>
>> I'd be more amenable to a patch that makes a macro like
>> posix-shell.m4 choose a shell with the features I use.
>> Since no one has reported trouble yet, perhaps it's not a problem
>> in practice.
>
> Hmm.  Maybe you're right.  That would be very cool to have 'local'
> available.
>
>> > FWIW, your second patch looks like it won't quite do what you intended
>> > if TMPDIR contains white space:
>> >
>> >   tp := $(shell echo "$(TMPDIR)/$(PACKAGE)-$$$$")
>> >   t_prefix = $(tp)/a
>> >   ... using $(t_prefix) unquoted in a number of places ...
>>
>> Yes.  That was deliberate.
>> With those rules, I have never bothered to accommodate white space in TMPDIR.
>> I expect that anyone clueful enough to run those optional rules also
>> knows not to choose a TMPDIR value that is likely to cause trouble.
>
> That is fine with me.  I just thought I'd mention it.

Hmm... don't want to give the wrong impression.
I don't want to obfuscate the code to accommodate a pathological TMPDIR
value.  However, it'd be far better to make things fail with a sensible
diagnostic when TMPDIR has an invalid value, than to continue on
and misbehave.

too little time...