Bug 222872 - lang/ruby26, lang/ruby27 and lang/ruby30: does not build with POSIX-compliant sh -c
Summary: lang/ruby26, lang/ruby27 and lang/ruby30: does not build with POSIX-compliant...
Status: New
Alias: None
Product: Ports & Packages
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Individual Port(s) (show other bugs)
Version: Latest
Hardware: Any Any
: --- Affects Some People
Assignee: freebsd-ruby (Nobody)
URL:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks: 220587
  Show dependency tree / graph
 
Reported: 2017-10-08 21:10 UTC by Jilles Tjoelker
Modified: 2021-04-06 20:29 UTC (History)
4 users (show)

See Also:
bugzilla: maintainer-feedback? (ruby)

Attachments
allow both current and POSIX-compliant sh -c (906 bytes, patch)
2017-10-08 21:10 UTC, Jilles Tjoelker 		no flags Details | Diff
View All Add an attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.)

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Jilles Tjoelker freebsd_committer 2017-10-08 21:10:45 UTC 
Created attachment 187013 [details]
allow both current and POSIX-compliant sh -c

The RB_SET_CONF_VAR macro uses a construct like

sh -c 'command' -- arg0 arg1

and assume that $0 will expand to arg0 and $1 will expand to arg1.

Our current sh implements it that way. However, POSIX specifies that $0 will
expand to -- and $1 will expand to arg0, since the command string is an operand
and not an option-argument. Bug #220587 requests making sh POSIX-compliant in
this regard.

If the argument after the command string does not start with '-', the current
sh behaves as required by POSIX. Therefore, the macros should be adjusted so
this is always the case.

Tested with poudriere, stable/10 with patched head sh.
Comment 1 Jilles Tjoelker freebsd_committer 2017-10-08 21:17:56 UTC 
The same problem affects lang/ruby23 and lang/ruby24, and the patch is the same (though context differs a bit for lang/ruby24).
Comment 2 Walter Schwarzenfeld freebsd_triage 2019-02-06 13:03:50 UTC 
ping!
Comment 3 Koichiro Iwao freebsd_committer 2019-02-08 00:38:45 UTC 
ruby22 is now EoL and already removed from ports tree.
Comment 4 Koichiro Iwao freebsd_committer 2019-02-08 00:43:36 UTC 
Oops, it affects ruby23 and ruby24.
Comment 5 Rene Ladan freebsd_committer 2021-04-06 14:48:10 UTC 
Is this still relevant with lang/ruby27 ?
Comment 6 Jilles Tjoelker freebsd_committer 2021-04-06 20:29:17 UTC 
(In reply to Rene Ladan from comment #5)
Yes, the problematic code is still in lang/ruby26, lang/ruby27 and lang/ruby30.