Gentoo Archives: gentoo-user

From: Dale <rdalek1967@×××××.com>
To: gentoo-user@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Shell echo missing after ctrl+c
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2017 12:12:39
Message-Id: 73718343-049a-47c9-a308-fc9edeecb7c1@gmail.com
In Reply to: [gentoo-user] Re: Shell echo missing after ctrl+c by Kai Krakow
1 Kai Krakow wrote:
2 > Am Sun, 19 Mar 2017 06:27:15 -0500
3 > schrieb Dale <rdalek1967@×××××.com>:
4 >
5 >
6 >
7 > Here is mine:
8 >
9 > root@fireball / # uname -r
10 > 4.5.2-gentoo
11 > root@fireball / #
12 >
13 > As far as I know, I use bash. If you are talking about what I think
14 > you are talking about.
15 > Yes, that's what I was talking about.
16 >
17 > Run ps, it should tell you the processes running in your current shell,
18 > including the shell itself:
19 >
20 > # ps
21 > PID TTY TIME CMD
22 > 1256 pts/2 00:00:00 ps
23 > 32059 pts/2 00:00:00 bash
24 >
25 > And you can see your default shell this way:
26 >
27 > # realpath /bin/sh
28 > /bin/dash
29 >
30 > Yes, dash for me, because it spawns much faster than bash, at least
31 > when running scripts. This can make a big difference with openrc.
32 > Meanwhile, I'm using systemd.
33
34 root@fireball / # ps | grep bash
35 8515 pts/0 00:00:00 bash
36 root@fireball / # realpath /bin/sh
37 /bin/bash
38 root@fireball / #
39
40 Looks like bash for me.
41
42
43 >> [IP-] [ ] app-shells/bash-4.3_p48-r1:0
44 > Here, too:
45 >
46 > # equery list bash
47 > [IP-] [ ] app-shells/bash-4.3_p48-r1:0
48 >
49 >> Given the age of your kernel, maybe it is above that level anyway. I
50 >> don't update my kernel often either.
51 >>
52 >> I'm going to be watching this thread tho. If I can share info which
53 >> may help narrow things down, I'll do that for sure.
54 > The problem is that this bug is totally non-deterministic... It fails
55 > once, next try it works as it should.
56 >
57 > If you can work out a way to reliably reproduce this bug, let me know.
58 > Then I'll try to work out what the problem is.
59 >
60
61
62 I think our other Alan posted a way to reproduce it. I see you replied
63 so maybe his post will help and I'll read your reply next. Maybe if we
64 share enough between several of us, we can at least rule out some stuff
65 and narrow it down a bit.
66
67 Dale
68
69 :-) :-)