 Relationships |
|
| Anonymous | Login | Signup for a new account | 11-10-2008 13:48 PST |
| Main | My View | View Issues | Change Log | Docs |
| Viewing Issue Simple Details [ Jump to Notes ] | [ View Advanced ] [ Issue History ] [ Print ] | ||||||||
| ID | Category | Severity | Reproducibility | Date Submitted | Last Update | ||||
| 0005764 | [BusyBox] Other | major | always | 10-27-08 04:42 | 10-27-08 05:18 | ||||
| Reporter | Andre Klapper | View Status | public | ||||||
| Assigned To | BusyBox | ||||||||
| Priority | normal | Resolution | no change required | ||||||
| Status | closed | Product Version | 1.10.x | ||||||
| Summary | 0005764: Disabling features not disabling corresponding command line options & Buggybox not erroring on unknown options | ||||||||
| Description |
Forwarding from https://bugs.maemo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3132 [^] . STEPS TO REPRODUCE THE PROBLEM: ~/tst $ ls -la foo -rw-r--r-- 1 user users 36 May 3 23:08 foo ~/tst $ cat foo CCCCCC 2 AAAAAA 1 BBBBBB 4 DDDDDD 6 ~/tst $ for n in 1 2; do echo busybox $n; busybox sort -n -k$n foo; done busybox 1 AAAAAA 1 BBBBBB 4 CCCCCC 2 DDDDDD 6 busybox 2 AAAAAA 1 BBBBBB 4 CCCCCC 2 DDDDDD 6 In Busybox 1.6.1 (and also 1.4.1 - see bug 1637 comment 0000009 where I first raised this issue) on N810/N800, the -k parameter is always interpreted as applying to the first field even when the user wishes to sort on the second field. The -k parameter and sorting on fields other than the first/default field should be fully supported in all recent versions of busybox. EXPECTED OUTCOME: From Ubuntu Feisty Fawn "sort" command: neil@nm-tyan:~$ uname -a Linux nm-tyan 2.6.22-14-generic 0000001 SMP Tue Feb 12 07:42:25 UTC 2008 i686 GNU/Linux neil@nm-tyan:~$ which sort /usr/bin/sort neil@nm-tyan:~$ for n in 1 2; do echo sort $n; sort -n -k$n foo;done sort 1 AAAAAA 1 BBBBBB 4 CCCCCC 2 DDDDDD 6 sort 2 AAAAAA 1 CCCCCC 2 BBBBBB 4 DDDDDD 6 ACTUAL OUTCOME: busybox only ever sorts on the first field even when instructed to sort on the second, third etc. field. Consequently the following list is NOT correctly sorted on the second field: busybox 2 AAAAAA 1 BBBBBB 4 CCCCCC 2 DDDDDD 6 http://bugs.busybox.net/view.php?id=1144 [^] implies that the fix should have gone to Busybox v1.7 or v1.8. However, when I tested with Busybox 1.10 in Maemo Fremantle, it still exhibited this issue. And when testing this more, none of: - using letters (and no -n) instead of numbers, - putting the letter to second char column, or - using TAB instead of space helps. Busybox sort -k option doesn't do anything. Etch Busybox v1.1.3 worked fine. Then I started to look into Busybox 1.10 sources. In our version CONFIG_FEATURE_SORT_BIG isn't currently enabled. *Keys and -k work only if it's enabled*. This is the most annoying thing in Busybox. If you configure out features, it doesn't disable the corresponding command line options, it just silently ignores them (in "ps" case, it ignores all options). This means that when e.g. building software using BB, Busybox can just silently corrupt the generated data; when installing software, installation scripts that given Busybox configuration breaks, don't fail as they should etc. |
||||||||
| Additional Information | |||||||||
| Attached Files | |||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Relationships |
|
|
Notes |
|
|
(0014284) vda 10-27-08 05:14 |
Works in current svn: # for n in 1 2; do echo ./busybox $n; ./busybox sort -n -k$n foo; done ./busybox 1 AAAAAA 1 BBBBBB 4 CCCCCC 2 DDDDDD 6 ./busybox 2 AAAAAA 1 CCCCCC 2 BBBBBB 4 DDDDDD 6 GNU sort does exactly the same: # for n in 1 2; do echo $n; sort -n -k$n foo; done 1 AAAAAA 1 BBBBBB 4 CCCCCC 2 DDDDDD 6 2 AAAAAA 1 CCCCCC 2 BBBBBB 4 DDDDDD 6 > Then I started to look into Busybox 1.10 sources. In our version > CONFIG_FEATURE_SORT_BIG isn't currently enabled. *Keys and -k work > only if it's enabled*. D'oh. You disabled the feature and then complain that it doesn't work. >This is the most annoying thing in Busybox. If you configure out features, >it doesn't disable the corresponding command line options, >it just silently ignores them (in "ps" case, it ignores all options). The opposite behavior would just annoy different group of people, which prefers utilities to ignore some switches instead of bombing out. umount ignores -v (verbose) switch. Do you want it to die instead? How is that useful? > This means that when e.g. building software using BB, Busybox can just > silently corrupt the generated data D'oh again. If you plan to build software on the machine you install busybox on, you'd better enable most of the options, since you want maximum compatibility. Disabling options implies that you know that in this particular installation it's ok. |
|
Issue History |
|||
| Date Modified | Username | Field | Change |
| 10-27-08 04:42 | Andre Klapper | New Issue | |
| 10-27-08 04:42 | Andre Klapper | Status | new => assigned |
| 10-27-08 04:42 | Andre Klapper | Assigned To | => BusyBox |
| 10-27-08 05:14 | vda | Note Added: 0014284 | |
| 10-27-08 05:18 | vda | Status | assigned => closed |
| 10-27-08 05:18 | vda | Resolution | open => no change required |
| Copyright © 2000 - 2006 Mantis Group |  |
