On Saturday 21 February 2009 19:54:51 Mart Raudsepp wrote:
> On Sat, 2009-02-21 at 19:44 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Saturday 21 February 2009 19:38:33 Mart Raudsepp wrote:
> > > On Sat, 2009-02-21 at 19:29 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > > On Saturday 21 February 2009 19:00:19 Mart Raudsepp wrote:
> > > > > On Sat, 2009-02-21 at 18:55 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > > > > On Saturday 21 February 2009 18:38:55 Ryan Hill wrote:
> > > > > > > On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 18:27:10 -0500 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > > > > > > looks like bash-4.0 has broken semicolon escaping in
> > > > > > > > subshells. this comes up when using find's -exec like we do
> > > > > > > > in a few places in eclasses: ls=$(find "$1" -name '*.po'
> > > > > > > > -exec basename {} .po \;); shift you can work around the
> > > > > > > > issue in a couple of ways: - quote the semicolon:
> > > > > > > > 	.... ';')
> > > > > > > >  - use backticks
> > > > > > > > 	`find .... \;`
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > i'll tweak the eclasses to use quoting for now
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > is this a bug or broken on purpose?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > i say it's a bug, but i'm not the bash maintainer
> > > > > >
> > > > > > i imagine it's fall out from attempts to fix support for case
> > > > > > statements in subshells
> > > > >
> > > > > Then the bug should be fixed, instead of changing usage to
> > > > > something apparently less common, as the conversion could miss
> > > > > some.  And more importantly users still want to use \; for find
> > > > > -exec ending on their command line and their very own scripts.
> > > > > And who knows how many shell scripts shipped by packages use the
> > > > > escaping method.
> > > >
> > > > i think you missed the entire point of this thread: there's a bug in
> > > > bash-4.0 that code is likely to hit.
> > >
> > > I think you missed the entire point of my reply.
> > > That bug should be fixed, not workarounds applied all over the tree, as
> > > users still want to be able to escape semi-colons.
> >
> > no one suggested doing any of this crap you're talking about.  if you
> > want to get all retarded, dont install the masked ebuild.  i gave a heads
> > up to people who might want to experiment so they wouldnt have to figure
> > out weird errors. in the mean time, i tweaked a few common files so
> > people wouldnt hit errors and could investigate even further.
>
> Perhaps you should actually state those intentions at the start instead
> of starting to rant out on people replying.
> Sounds good now that we actually know what the plan is.

i guess i used too many code words like "bash-4.0 is broken" and "workaround".  
i'll address this in the future by just mailing base-system@gentoo.org as they 
should be familiar with these insider terms.
-mike