Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 00:55:31 +0300 From: Giorgos Keramidas <keramida@ceid.upatras.gr> To: Eric Crist <mnslinky@gmail.com> Cc: Wojciech Puchar <wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl>, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org, Hinkie <Hinkie@paradise.net.nz> Subject: Re: FreeBSD Cron Job to run (ifconfig em0 down; ifconfig em0 up) Message-ID: <20070829215531.GA1641@kobe.laptop> In-Reply-To: <14ECFF9B-9559-4B45-B44B-8E030597B00C@gmail.com> References: <01a901c7ea3d$0ad62720$1e00a8c0@cheqsoft.local> <20070829185012.A14865@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> <20070829185450.GA15895@kobe.laptop> <14ECFF9B-9559-4B45-B44B-8E030597B00C@gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2007-08-29 14:18, Eric Crist <mnslinky@gmail.com> wrote: >On Aug 29, 2007, at 1:54 PMAug 29, 2007, Giorgos Keramidas wrote: >> On 2007-08-29 18:51, Wojciech Puchar <wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> >> wrote: >>> fragment from my test program (used for other thing but doesn't matter) >>> >>> /sbin/ping -i 0.5 -s 1450 -c 3 tested_host >/dev/null 2>/dev/null >>> if [ $? != 0 ];then >>> perform_action_if_doesnt_ping >>> fi >> >> I'm not sure if '!=' is a 'portable' way to write sh(1) tests, >> but you have a point there :-) > > AFAIK, the != is evaluated by test, not sh. You're right. I did check with SUSv2 and SUSv3 after I posted the previous message. The != operator is defined by both standards[1,2], so I was wrong about its portability. [1] http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/007908799/xcu/test.html [2] http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/utilities/test.html Thanks for the correction, Giorgos
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070829215531.GA1641>