You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@tomcat.apache.org by co...@eng.sun.com on 1999/12/15 09:30:15 UTC
Re: Is KSH "officially" needed?
Paul Philion wrote:
> Greetings -
>
> While building and running test scripts, I discovered that serveral of
> the utility/test scripts refer to "ksh". Most of the scripts just use
> "sh".
>
> Is ksh required for development?
No, those scripts should move to sh.
( most of them are not important, and some can just be removed since
are deprecated by ant )
Costin
Re: Is KSH "officially" needed?
Posted by Co...@eng.sun.com.
Paul Philion wrote:
> Costin.Manolache@eng.sun.com wrote:
> > Both runtest.sh are bad, not because ksh but because of that
> > sleep that can't be avoided and it's either too long or too
> > short.
> > The problem is in tomcat - which should notify somehow that he is done
> > initializing, so next process can start doing something.
>
> Um... Right now, based on the current CVS image, what's the correct way
> to run the tests?
runtest.sh :-)
Costin
Re: Is KSH "officially" needed?
Posted by Paul Philion <ph...@acmerocket.com>.
Costin.Manolache@eng.sun.com wrote:
> Both runtest.sh are bad, not because ksh but because of that
> sleep that can't be avoided and it's either too long or too
> short.
> The problem is in tomcat - which should notify somehow that he is done
> initializing, so next process can start doing something.
Um... Right now, based on the current CVS image, what's the correct way
to run the tests?
> Also, I think the right way would be to have the tests as a WAR file,
> that can be installed in the main tomcat workspace - so you start
> it once and you can run all tests you want.
> And maybe to have a more modular test client, that allow you to run
> tests individauly, with verbose flag, and maybe ( I'm dreaming ) integrated
> into Ant ( with specialized tasks to get a page, specialized task to compare
> 2 files, eventually with concurent threads options...)
And you can get this done between the hours of 1 and 4 am, right? I'll
expect it in two weeks. Fully documented.
(In case you missed it, there is a smiley there. There's just something
Dilbertesque about it that reminds my of my own job.)
- Paul
Re: Is KSH "officially" needed?
Posted by James Duncan Davidson <Ja...@eng.sun.com>.
On Wed, 15 Dec 1999 Costin.Manolache@eng.sun.com wrote:
> Both runtest.sh are bad, not because ksh but because of that
> sleep that can't be avoided and it's either too long or too
> short.
Yep... I abhor having that sleep in there. The person that gets that out
of there and finds me gets a drink of their choice bought for them. :)
--
James Davidson duncan@eng.sun.com
Java + XML / Portable Code + Portable Data !try; do()
Re: Is KSH "officially" needed?
Posted by Co...@eng.sun.com.
Paul Philion wrote:
> Costin -
>
> The reason I mention it is because the "build/tomcat/test/runtest.sh"
> winds up with ksh. This is based on
>
> jakarta-tomcat/src/tests/bin/runtest.sh
>
> Which has your name on it. ;-)
:-)
I just cut&pasted it, and since I had ksh...
Both runtest.sh are bad, not because ksh but because of that
sleep that can't be avoided and it's either too long or too
short.
The problem is in tomcat - which should notify somehow that he is done
initializing, so next process can start doing something.
Also, I think the right way would be to have the tests as a WAR file,
that can be installed in the main tomcat workspace - so you start
it once and you can run all tests you want.
And maybe to have a more modular test client, that allow you to run
tests individauly, with verbose flag, and maybe ( I'm dreaming ) integrated
into Ant ( with specialized tasks to get a page, specialized task to compare
2
files, eventually with concurent threads options...)
Costin
Re: Is KSH "officially" needed?
Posted by Paul Philion <ph...@acmerocket.com>.
Costin -
The reason I mention it is because the "build/tomcat/test/runtest.sh"
winds up with ksh. This is based on
jakarta-tomcat/src/tests/bin/runtest.sh
Which has your name on it. ;-)
That one, and the
jakarta-watchdog/src/bin/runtest.sh
are the only ones I'm actually worried about.
- Paul
costin@eng.sun.com wrote:
>
> Paul Philion wrote:
>
> > Greetings -
> >
> > While building and running test scripts, I discovered that serveral of
> > the utility/test scripts refer to "ksh". Most of the scripts just use
> > "sh".
> >
> > Is ksh required for development?
>
> No, those scripts should move to sh.
>
> ( most of them are not important, and some can just be removed since
> are deprecated by ant )
>
> Costin
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tomcat-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tomcat-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Is KSH "officially" needed?
Posted by Jason Hunter <jh...@acm.org>.
Costin.Manolache@eng.sun.com wrote:
> Again - someone on AIX or IRIX or HPUX or Digital - please
> check if you have an /opt and let us know.
On my IRIX machine I have an /opt but it has just empty directories
under it. That makes me think some package once installed itself
there but I've since removed it. Common places on IRIX are
/usr/share/${pkgname} and /usr/${pkgname}.
BTW, IRIX has a really slick install/uninstall capability. (I hope SGI
open sources it now with their Linux push; last I checked -- a while ago
admittedly -- it went far beyond what Sun and RedHat offer). Anyway, if
there are any folks out there using IRIX, I could be persuaded to create
an inst-able version of the 3.0 Tomcat release. Would anyone care? If
so, write to me privately.
Meanwhile, IRIX brethren, you can get a mod_jserv.so for IRIX from
http://www.servlets.com/soapbox/techtips/.
-jh-
Re: Is KSH "officially" needed?
Posted by Co...@eng.sun.com.
>
> > But please don't ask me to do it - I have very strong reasons
> > to use /opt on all unixes instead of /opt on Solaris and /usr/local
> > on RedHat. KDE installs in /opt - unless it's part of the distr.
>
> My intention was /usr/local/{$package}.
If you read Linux file system standards ( any of them ),
/usr/local is supposed to follow the /usr hierarchy, i.e. /usr/local/bin,
etc.
/usr/local/package is _not_ Linux "standard", and I don't know
any RPM that installs on /usr/local. ( or .deb )
/opt is _not_ specific to Solaris ( I haven't used AIX or Irix lately,
but AFAIK they also use /opt ).
> way to go. In any case, I won't use the RPM as it stands now
> as it is biased IMHO towards the Solaris paradigm.
It is a very good style that has many technical advantages.
/usr/local/package is (IMHO) a bad choice because it follows
no paradigm at all, it would make documentation and scripts
a nightmare ( if tomcat will be included in distributions, we will
have yet-another location for it - probably 2 - Apache has
a completely differtent structure on Debian and RedHat )
Again - someone on AIX or IRIX or HPUX or Digital - please
check if you have an /opt and let us know.
I can live with /usr/local/package - since it is almos identical
with /opt, but I am -1 against /usr/local/bin.
( assuming someone else will do the packaging !)
There is no problem on having 2 RPMs for the same thing,
Apache has more ( RedHat style, Debian style, etc), but
fragmentation is bad.
Regarding configure - it has nothing to do with RPM format,
but with the build process- and for Java I see no need.
We will use configure for the native code - when someone will
write the scripts ( I am happy with APXS ).
Costin
Re: Is KSH "officially" needed?
Posted by john todd <to...@Colorado.EDU>.
> > It's amusing to note that this trend is popular in the Solaris world as well --
> > on sites like www.sunfreeware.com nearly every prepackaged application is
> > available for /usr/local install, while only some of them are available for
> > /opt install.
>
> /usr/local is easier because you don't have to change your PATH.
> It's bad because you have no control - not only namespace colision,
> but you may want to check how much space is used by a package,
> backup individual packages, etc.
>
> I don't want to start a war on this, if anyone has a very strong
> reason to install tomcat.sh in /usr/local/bin or
> create a /usr/local/tomcat - please feel free to do it, I already spent
> too much time building rpms and pkgs.
>
> But please don't ask me to do it - I have very strong reasons
> to use /opt on all unixes instead of /opt on Solaris and /usr/local
> on RedHat. KDE installs in /opt - unless it's part of the distr.
My intention was /usr/local/{$package}.
I am really busy right now, but configure is probably a better
way to go. In any case, I won't use the RPM as it stands now
as it is biased IMHO towards the Solaris paradigm.
No big deal, just an unfortunate difference in a minor vision
of this project.
The reason I am hammering on this now is that I agree with Jason
Hunter about more discussions before check-ins, rudderless, etc.
Thanks for your time and sorry for carrying on the this thread.
john todd
Re: Is KSH "officially" needed?
Posted by Co...@eng.sun.com.
> It's amusing to note that this trend is popular in the Solaris world as well --
> on sites like www.sunfreeware.com nearly every prepackaged application is
> available for /usr/local install, while only some of them are available for
> /opt install.
/usr/local is easier because you don't have to change your PATH.
It's bad because you have no control - not only namespace colision,
but you may want to check how much space is used by a package,
backup individual packages, etc.
I don't want to start a war on this, if anyone has a very strong
reason to install tomcat.sh in /usr/local/bin or
create a /usr/local/tomcat - please feel free to do it, I already spent
too much time building rpms and pkgs.
But please don't ask me to do it - I have very strong reasons
to use /opt on all unixes instead of /opt on Solaris and /usr/local
on RedHat. KDE installs in /opt - unless it's part of the distr.
Costin
Re: Is KSH "officially" needed?
Posted by James Duncan Davidson <Ja...@eng.sun.com>.
> It's amusing to note that this trend is popular in the Solaris world as well --
> on sites like www.sunfreeware.com nearly every prepackaged application is
> available for /usr/local install, while only some of them are available for
> /opt install.
And the fact that all those packages on www.sunfreeware.com are compiled
for /usr/local/* really sucks as a lot of Sun environments (where there's
lots of NFS mounting and such of shared resources) map /usr/local to
some server on the net under some admin's control.
/opt/* is almost universally (unless you are on a diskless client) on the
local drives.
+1 /opt/*
--
James Davidson duncan@eng.sun.com
Java + XML / Portable Code + Portable Data !try; do()
Re: Is KSH "officially" needed?
Posted by "Craig R. McClanahan" <cm...@mytownnet.com>.
Costin.Manolache@eng.sun.com wrote:
> Having a clear rule for where to install is very usefull for documentations
> and utilities - and I see no reason not to follow the /opt convention.
>
Having installed a bunch of applications on Linux -- Red Hat in my case -- over
the last few months (both RPM installs and build-from-source installs), I note
that 100% of them installed in, or defaulted for installation into,
/usr/local. Undoubtedly this was not a statistically valid sampling of all
possible apps, but the convention appears to be pretty strong on Red Hat at
least.
It's amusing to note that this trend is popular in the Solaris world as well --
on sites like www.sunfreeware.com nearly every prepackaged application is
available for /usr/local install, while only some of them are available for
/opt install.
>
> Costin
>
Craig McClanahan
Re: Is KSH "officially" needed?
Posted by Co...@eng.sun.com.
> To my knowledge, /opt is a pure Sun thing. Nobody else really uses it,
> but if it is in the Posix spec, can you point me to the Chapter, Section.
> To be honest, I would be very suprised.
BTW, Suse and Debian are using /opt.
Costin
Re: Is KSH "officially" needed?
Posted by Co...@eng.sun.com.
> Actually, the Java Servlet Development Kit v2.1 uses
> 'ksh' to start and stop the server. Here is a snippet
> of that session.
>
> > Ksh is not installed by default on Linux, and in general
> > it is not installed in standard locations ( FreeBSD: /usr/local/bin/ksh,
> > also not in the "standard" distrib. ).
>
> Hmmm. This is *NOT* my experience at all and I have used RedHat,
> Debian, and Suse. 'ksh' is in /bin or /usr/bin. Also, on AIX,
> 'ksh' is the default shell.
There is a KSH package for RedHat, but it is installed only if you do
a complete install ( or at least used to be that ).
Also, take a look at locus (FreeBSD) - where it's in a different location.
In general - I don't think there is any Unix without a /bin/sh,
while I'm sure you'll find many without ksh.
( there are few documents - including the packaging guide for
solaris - that require all scripts to be in sh.
I think the RPM guide does the same, and all "standard"
scripts on RedHat and Solaris are in sh)
( I hate that - I like bash instead )
> > > Also, one other minor issue: RPM packaging. On Solaris, I think it
> > > is okay to through stuff in /opt, but on Linux, I believe /usr/local
> > > is generally the preferred place to throw packages. On the other
> > > hand, the Linux Standards Base does not specify this . . . yet.
> >
> > It does - or the file system spec did.
> > /opt is for "vendor-packages" ( i.e. packaes not part of standard
> > distribution),
> > and it should follow existing standards ( is it Posix? ).
>
> To my knowledge, /opt is a pure Sun thing. Nobody else really uses it,
> but if it is in the Posix spec, can you point me to the Chapter, Section.
> To be honest, I would be very suprised.
HPUX, AIX, DEC, IRIX - all use /opt
Linux "Filesystem Hierarchy Standard":
"/opt is reserved for the installation of add-on application software packages.
"
> > KDE used to install in /opt - before it was integrated into distributions.
>
> Some Linux distros are choosing to include /opt for the purposes of
> playing well with Sun. This is *ONLY* a courtesy, so I wouldn't rely
> on it.
Probably a courtesy to Unix :-)
/usr/local is not intended for packages - you can't have multiple
versions, you can't share individual packages ( we don't care about
that, but it's important for commercial products ).
( I'm taking about /usr/local/bin style, where all the programs
go to bin, all logs to /usr/local/logs, etc. Apache installs in /usr/local,
but follows the /opt style, i.e. /usr/local/apache/bin, etc)
> I was perusing the LSB (www.linuxbase.org) to clarify this for myself,
> but it is not specified in that document. Another place to look is in the
> Linux Filesystem Structure (www.pathname.com/fhs/1.2/fsstnd-toc.html),
Section 3.8
Costin
Re: Is KSH "officially" needed?
Posted by john todd <to...@Colorado.EDU>.
> > This is not to say that 'ksh' is off limits for development, right?
> > 'sh' and 'ksh' are both readily available on all *nix that I have
> > access to (HP_UX, Solaris, FreeBSD, Linux).
>
> I don't think it can be used on startup scripts.
Actually, the Java Servlet Development Kit v2.1 uses
'ksh' to start and stop the server. Here is a snippet
of that session.
spooky% pwd
/nfs/stool-199a/tools/cs/common/jsdk-2.1
spooky% head -5 startserver
#!/bin/ksh
#
# $Id: startup.ksh,v 1.9 1999/04/09 19:50:35 duncan Exp $
# Shell script to startup the server
spooky% head -5 stopserver
#!/bin/ksh
#
# $Id: shutdown.ksh,v 1.6 1999/04/09 19:50:33 duncan Exp $
# Shell script to shutdown the server
> Ksh is not installed by default on Linux, and in general
> it is not installed in standard locations ( FreeBSD: /usr/local/bin/ksh,
> also not in the "standard" distrib. ).
Hmmm. This is *NOT* my experience at all and I have used RedHat,
Debian, and Suse. 'ksh' is in /bin or /usr/bin. Also, on AIX,
'ksh' is the default shell.
> > Also, one other minor issue: RPM packaging. On Solaris, I think it
> > is okay to through stuff in /opt, but on Linux, I believe /usr/local
> > is generally the preferred place to throw packages. On the other
> > hand, the Linux Standards Base does not specify this . . . yet.
>
> It does - or the file system spec did.
> /opt is for "vendor-packages" ( i.e. packaes not part of standard
> distribution),
> and it should follow existing standards ( is it Posix? ).
To my knowledge, /opt is a pure Sun thing. Nobody else really uses it,
but if it is in the Posix spec, can you point me to the Chapter, Section.
To be honest, I would be very suprised.
> KDE used to install in /opt - before it was integrated into distributions.
Some Linux distros are choosing to include /opt for the purposes of
playing well with Sun. This is *ONLY* a courtesy, so I wouldn't rely
on it.
> Even Apache, it install in /usr/local but follows the /opt conventions
> ( i.e. it's /usr/local/apache/bin - instead of /usr/local/bin ).
>
> Having a clear rule for where to install is very usefull for documentations
> and utilities - and I see no reason not to follow the /opt convention.
I was perusing the LSB (www.linuxbase.org) to clarify this for myself,
but it is not specified in that document. Another place to look is in the
Linux Filesystem Structure (www.pathname.com/fhs/1.2/fsstnd-toc.html),
where there is no mention of /opt. I actually quit using RPM except those
from my distribution as people keep screwing up my file system hierarchy
with them and I just wanted to bring this concern to the table.
jt
Re: Is KSH "officially" needed?
Posted by Co...@eng.sun.com.
> This is not to say that 'ksh' is off limits for development, right?
> 'sh' and 'ksh' are both readily available on all *nix that I have
> access to (HP_UX, Solaris, FreeBSD, Linux).
I don't think it can be used on startup scripts.
Ksh is not installed by default on Linux, and in general
it is not installed in standard locations ( FreeBSD: /usr/local/bin/ksh,
also not in the "standard" distrib. ).
> I am not sure if 'ksh' is supported under the Cygnus toolset for
> Windows 9x/NT (I know 'bash' is), but they get *.bat files, so
> they are not left out in the cold.
Again - it is far more probable to get sh ( or any variant that is
compatible - like bash )
> Also, one other minor issue: RPM packaging. On Solaris, I think it
> is okay to through stuff in /opt, but on Linux, I believe /usr/local
> is generally the preferred place to throw packages. On the other
> hand, the Linux Standards Base does not specify this . . . yet.
It does - or the file system spec did.
/opt is for "vendor-packages" ( i.e. packaes not part of standard
distribution),
and it should follow existing standards ( is it Posix? ).
KDE used to install in /opt - before it was integrated into distributions.
Even Apache, it install in /usr/local but follows the /opt conventions
( i.e. it's /usr/local/apache/bin - instead of /usr/local/bin ).
Having a clear rule for where to install is very usefull for documentations
and utilities - and I see no reason not to follow the /opt convention.
Costin
Re: Is KSH "officially" needed?
Posted by john todd <to...@Colorado.EDU>.
> > While building and running test scripts, I discovered that serveral of
> > the utility/test scripts refer to "ksh". Most of the scripts just use
> > "sh".
> >
> > Is ksh required for development?
>
> No, those scripts should move to sh.
>
> ( most of them are not important, and some can just be removed since
> are deprecated by ant )
This is not to say that 'ksh' is off limits for development, right?
'sh' and 'ksh' are both readily available on all *nix that I have
access to (HP_UX, Solaris, FreeBSD, Linux).
I am not sure if 'ksh' is supported under the Cygnus toolset for
Windows 9x/NT (I know 'bash' is), but they get *.bat files, so
they are not left out in the cold.
Also, one other minor issue: RPM packaging. On Solaris, I think it
is okay to through stuff in /opt, but on Linux, I believe /usr/local
is generally the preferred place to throw packages. On the other
hand, the Linux Standards Base does not specify this . . . yet.
Can someone please clarify the above for me.
thanks,
john todd