From owner-freebsd-stable  Wed Aug  7  2:41: 6 2002
Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 7EB7A37B40F; Wed,  7 Aug 2002 02:40:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pump3.york.ac.uk (pump3.york.ac.uk [144.32.128.131])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 2AC3243E6A; Wed,  7 Aug 2002 02:40:56 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from gavin.atkinson@ury.york.ac.uk)
Received: from ury.york.ac.uk (ury.york.ac.uk [144.32.108.81])
	by pump3.york.ac.uk (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g779en709428;
	Wed, 7 Aug 2002 10:40:50 +0100 (BST)
Received: from ury.york.ac.uk (localhost.york.ac.uk [127.0.0.1])
	by ury.york.ac.uk (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id g779env6067082;
	Wed, 7 Aug 2002 10:40:49 +0100 (BST)
	(envelope-from gavin.atkinson@ury.york.ac.uk)
Received: from localhost (gavin@localhost)
	by ury.york.ac.uk (8.12.3/8.12.3/Submit) with ESMTP id g779elAk067075;
	Wed, 7 Aug 2002 10:40:49 +0100 (BST)
X-Authentication-Warning: ury.york.ac.uk: gavin owned process doing -bs
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 10:40:47 +0100 (BST)
From: Gavin Atkinson <gavin@ury.york.ac.uk>
To: The Anarcat <anarcat@anarcat.ath.cx>
Cc: "C.J." <clayton@frii.net>, <freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG>,
	<tjr@FreeBSD.ORG>
Subject: Re: /bin/sh changed?
In-Reply-To: <20020806230018.GC1019@lenny.anarcat.ath.cx>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.33.0208071035470.65875-100000@ury.york.ac.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <freebsd-stable.FreeBSD.ORG>
List-Archive: <http://docs.freebsd.org/mail/> (Web Archive)
List-Help: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=help> (List Instructions)
List-Subscribe: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=subscribe%20freebsd-stable>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=unsubscribe%20freebsd-stable>
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

On Tue, 6 Aug 2002, The Anarcat wrote:

> Note that the mysql script is quite odd, in itself. It comes back to:
>
> sh -c 'true & && echo foo'
>
> which is quite foolish anyways.

I don't see what the problem with this is, and am of the opinion that if
this particular construct does not work, it should. (Note i'm not talking
about the obviously wrong "||exit 1" following a line which does not end
with a backslash).

Surely, the construct "foo & && echo foo" should be allowable, and should
mean "run foo in the background, and if successfull, say so". If foo is
not found, or not executable, or if the shell couldn't fork due to low
memory, then don't print that it was successful. This is what I have used
it for in the past.

Gavin


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message