Bug 242216 – [gnome overlay] gnome-base/gdm-2.24: underquoted variable

• Status: RESOLVED FIXED
• Product: Gentoo Linux

[Description Jimmy.Jazz 2008-10-15 15:42:19 UTC]

hello,

uname -p returns a string at least on x86 platforms and you get a
[: too many arguments.

--- config/Init.in.orig	2008-10-15 17:33:12.000000000 +0200
+++ config/Init.in	2008-10-15 17:33:41.000000000 +0200
@@ -47,7 +47,7 @@
 
   UNAME=`gdmwhich uname`
   PROCESSOR=`$UNAME -p`
-  if [ x$PROCESSOR = xsparc ]; then
+  if [ x"$PROCESSOR" = xsparc ]; then
     if $XMODMAP | /usr/bin/grep mod4 | /usr/bin/grep Alt > /dev/null 2>/dev/null
     then
       $XMODMAP -e "clear Mod1" \

Also, still present in gdm 2.24.0 package.


Reproducible: Always

[Comment 1 Gilles Dartiguelongue (RETIRED) 2008-10-15 20:15:16 UTC]

did you report this upstream ?

[Comment 2 Jimmy.Jazz 2008-10-15 21:06:12 UTC]

(In reply to comment #1)
> did you report this upstream ?
> 
No, I didn't.

[Comment 3 Nirbheek Chauhan (RETIRED) 2008-10-16 02:33:01 UTC]

(In reply to comment #0)
> uname -p returns a string at least on x86 platforms and you get a
> [: too many arguments.

<snip>
> -  if [ x$PROCESSOR = xsparc ]; then
> +  if [ x"$PROCESSOR" = xsparc ]; then
<snip>

Yes, and if it's not exactly equal to "sparc", then it's not supposed to be true anyway :-)

This isn't a "bug" per-se but it's definitely a potential bug.

PS: I noticed this myself a while ago and came to the conclusion that it wasn't worth reporting ;p

[Comment 4 Jimmy.Jazz 2008-10-16 13:01:48 UTC]

(In reply to comment #3)

> PS: I noticed this myself a while ago and came to the conclusion that it wasn't
> worth reporting ;p
> 

I have reported it for aesthetic matter :)

[Comment 5 Jimmy.Jazz 2008-10-16 13:04:24 UTC]

(In reply to comment #4)

> I have reported it for aesthetic matter :)

to gentoo bugzilla of course. We don't want a beach spoiled with tar do we ?

[Comment 6 Gilles Dartiguelongue (RETIRED) 2008-10-16 20:03:41 UTC]

aesthetic is good for upstream, we just care about the damn thing working :)
Anyway, I'll forward this upstream and fix it as time permits in portage.

>  We don't want a beach spoiled with tar do we ?

I don't understand this part.

[Comment 7 Gilles Dartiguelongue (RETIRED) 2008-10-23 19:33:08 UTC]

*** Bug 243464 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

[Comment 8 Gilles Dartiguelongue (RETIRED) 2008-11-21 23:47:19 UTC]

afaik, this problem is only present in gdm 2.24, please report this upstream.

[Comment 9 Pacho Ramos 2008-12-07 11:08:05 UTC]

I have sent it to upstream:
http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=563550

Patch was generated for trunk, but can be easily adapted to 2.24 branch

Affected people, please check if something is wrong on it as I am still using gdm-2.20 under amd64 and x86 arches and cannot reproduce

Thanks

[Comment 10 Pacho Ramos 2008-12-19 16:13:27 UTC]

This has been already fixed by upstream in trunk and gdm-2.20.9, I am unsure about 2.24 :-/

[Comment 11 Gilles Dartiguelongue (RETIRED) 2009-01-05 23:33:35 UTC]

2.20.9 is in tree.

[Comment 12 Gilles Dartiguelongue (RETIRED) 2009-03-29 18:32:51 UTC]

gdm-2.26 should be fixed in overlay. Thanks for reporting.