[systemd-devel] [RFC PATCH] Fix so install will work without 'ln --relative' support

[Lennart Poettering]

On Wed, 07.05.14 08:54, Emil Sjölin (emil.sjolin at axis.com) wrote:

> This fix makes sure that the package installation will work
> on systems using versions of 'GNU coreutils' older than 8.16.
> 
> Please see tools/lnr.sh for limitations for this fix.
> ---
>  configure.ac |   16 ++++++++++
>  tools/lnr.sh |   93 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  2 files changed, 109 insertions(+)
>  create mode 100755 tools/lnr.sh
> 
> diff --git a/configure.ac b/configure.ac
> index ead697b..399a52f 100644
> --- a/configure.ac
> +++ b/configure.ac
> @@ -315,6 +315,22 @@ fi
>  AM_CONDITIONAL(ENABLE_COVERAGE, [test "$have_coverage" = "yes"])
>  
>  # ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> +ln_relative_support=yes
> +AC_CHECK_PROG(ln_found, [ln], [yes], [no])
> +if test "x$ln_found" = xno ; then
> +        AC_MSG_ERROR([*** ln support requested but the program was not found])
> +else
> +        ln_version_major="`ln --version | head -1 | cut -d ' ' -f 4 | cut -d '.' -f 1`"
> +        ln_version_minor="`ln --version | head -1 | cut -d ' ' -f 4 |
> cut -d '.' -f 2`"

Isn't "head -n 1" more correct?

> +        if test "$ln_version_major" -lt 8 || test "$ln_version_major" -eq 8 -a "$ln_version_minor" -lt 16; then
> +                ln_relative_support=no
> +        fi
> +        if test "x$ln_relative_support" = "xno"; then
> +                LN_S=$(echo "$LN_S" | sed
> s:"ln":""$srcdir"\/tools\/lnr.sh":)

Shouldn't this be "sed -e"?

> +        fi
> +fi

Hmm, if we ship this anyway, why not always use it? Otherwise it would
too easily bitrot...

THis would also allow removing much of the shell pipeline in the
configure script for this. I mean, these commands have changed all the
time in the past, for example sed quite a bit...

> +
> +# ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  have_kmod=no
>  AC_ARG_ENABLE(kmod, AS_HELP_STRING([--disable-kmod], [disable loadable modules support]))
>  if test "x$enable_kmod" != "xno"; then
> diff --git a/tools/lnr.sh b/tools/lnr.sh
> new file mode 100755
> index 0000000..74e1644
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/tools/lnr.sh
> @@ -0,0 +1,93 @@

No shebang?

> +# This script makes the 'ln --relative' command work as expected on a system where the
> +# 'relative' option of 'ln' is not supported.
> +#
> +# NOTE:
> +# The script assumes that the 'relative' option of 'ln' is used with any
> +# of the following syntaxes:
> +# '--relative'
> +# '-r'
> +#
> +# The script will NOT handle combined options e.g. '-rf', '-ir' etc.
> +# The script will also only handle the 1st form of the 'ln' command (see man page
> +# for the 'ln' command for the different forms).
> +#
> +
> +
> +while [ $# -gt 2 ]; do
> +	string="$1"
> +	if [ "${string#-*}" != "$string" ]; then
> +		# argument is an option
> +		if [ "$string" = "$relop_1" ] || [ "$string" =
> "$relop_2" ]; then

Why not "-o" instead of "] || ["?

I'd really prefer if somebody who's a true shell guru could look over
this. Harald? (Or Zbigniew?)

Lennart

-- 
Lennart Poettering, Red Hat