http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=587428 http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=587428#c yang xiaoyu <xyyang@novell.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|tambet@novell.com |mzugec@novell.com -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=587428 http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=587428#c2 Dr. Werner Fink <werner@novell.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC| |werner@novell.com Resolution| |INVALID --- Comment #2 from Dr. Werner Fink <werner@novell.com> 2010-03-12 10:28:24 UTC --- AFAICS the script /etc/init.d/network is a bash script and also the file /etc/sysconfig/network/scripts/functions is for bash usage only. The constructs '<()' and `>()' are so called fifo's explained in the manual page of the bash in section `Process Substitution' Process substitution is supported on systems that support named pipes (FIFOs) or the /dev/fd method of naming open files. It takes the form of <(list) or >(list). The process list is run with its input or output connected to a FIFO or some file in /dev/fd. The name of this file is passed as an argument to the current command as the result of the expansion. If the >(list) form is used, writing to the file will provide input for list. If the <(list) form is used, the file passed as an argument should be read to obtain the output of list. When available, process substitution is performed simultaneously with parameter and variable expansion, command substitution, and arith- metic expansion. Please note that the construct a="" while do ... a=x;... done < <(command) echo $a is able to to show the new value of $a whereas the a="" command | while do ... a=x;... done does not. Beside this the first way of using a real fifo is normally faster then using a normal pipe. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=587428 http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=587428#c4 --- Comment #4 from Marius Tomaschewski <mt@novell.com> 2010-03-12 10:59:53 UTC --- Thanks Werner, you were faster. I'm not even thinking about sh compatibility -- there is no reason for and also IMO no reason to reinvent the wheel and use sh-compatible code as in comment 3. (In reply to comment #0)

User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; Konqueror/4.3; Linux) KHTML/4.3.5 (like Gecko) SUSE

It appears to me that

/etc/sysconfig/network/scripts/functions

is not /bin/sh compatible.

I'm not sure if it is /bin/bash but would doubt it too.

It _is_ bash and no, it isn't sh compatible. All scripts in sysconfig require bash and they use #!/bin/bash at the begin. BTW: Most of the scripts in openSUSE require bash. I'll also not change to become sh compatible. There is no reason for use and it would require that some features can't be used any more, e.g. regex - it makes completely no sense to reinvent the wheel. This special example is maybe not needed in sysconfig, but it is possible in bash >= 3.x: pat='^(([^:/?#]+):)?(//([^/?#]*))?([^?#]*)([?]([^#]*))?(#(.*))?' str='https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=587428#add_comment' if [[ $str =~ $pat ]] ; then declare -i i for ((i=0;i<${#BASH_REMATCH[@]};i++)) ; do echo "[$i] ${BASH_REMATCH[$i]}" done fi [0] https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=587428#add_comment [1] https: [2] https [3] //bugzilla.novell.com [4] bugzilla.novell.com [5] /show_bug.cgi [6] ?id=587428 [7] id=587428 [8] #add_comment [9] add_comment [...]

I would say a shell-construct like

while ..

do < <(command)

is not allowded. better use

See "man bash", "Process Substitution". It is normal bash syntax, that opens a fifo `<()' as normal standard input for all command in the while loop.

I think that most of network-script is working is that these> functions are not used in many cases.

Sorry, but this is nonsense.

A pool of computers did not start network due to this error.

Then don't try to use /bin/sh when a script is using /bin/bash at the begin.

Please rethink also programming-style of

/etc/init.d/network

Code around line 49:

if ! . scripts/functions 2>/dev/null; then echo -n "Network: file /etc/sysconfig/network/scripts/functions is missing." rc_failed rc_status -v rc_exit fi

I my case scripts/functions was present, but had a syntactical error but shell-output of that error was redirected to /dev/null. The resulting message "Network: file /etc/sysconfig/network/scripts/functions is missing." was not true and misleading.

Yes, the message is misleading - most of the scripts are quite old, written by many people having different styles and could get some some cleanup. I'll fix the above when I not forget it, but there are more urgent things to cleanup than the above message. And no, there is no syntax error. Every script in sysconfig verified for correct syntax (bash -n) in every RPM build. => INVALID, try to use wrong shell. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.