fix mail02,03 fail due to different sender names

Hi all, mail02 and mail03 tests non-existed host and non-existed username in the test. However in some systems (at least in RHEL6), they both fails because of the sender name of the returned letter is "Mail Deliver System" instead of "Mail Delivery Subsys", which makes RC1 to be zero and fail the test. The patch fixes this issue.

Signed-off-by Caspar Zhang <[email protected]>

---
 testcases/commands/mail/mail_tests.sh |    4 ++--
 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

testcases/commands/mail/mail_tests.sh +1 -1

index 53a5d90..c30e2c3 100755
@@ -169,7 +169,7 @@ else
 		RC1=$(awk '/^>N/ {IGNORECASE=1; print match($3, "Mailer-Daemon")}' \
 		    $LTPTMP/tst_mail.res)
 	else
-		RC1=$(awk '/^>N/ {IGNORECASE=1; print match($3 $4 $5,
 "MailDeliverySubsys")}' \
+		RC1=$(awk '/^>N/ {IGNORECASE=1; print match($3 $4 $5,
 "MailDelivery(Subsys|System)")}' \
 		    $LTPTMP/tst_mail.res)

testcases/commands/mail/mail_tests.sh +1 -1

 	fi

@@ -250,7 +250,7 @@ else
 		RC1=$(awk '/^>N/ {IGNORECASE=1; print match($3, "Mailer-Daemon")}' \
 		    $LTPTMP/tst_mail.res)
 	else
-		RC1=$(awk '/^>N/ {IGNORECASE=1; print match($3 $4 $5,
 "MailDeliverySubsys")}' \
+		RC1=$(awk '/^>N/ {IGNORECASE=1; print match($3 $4 $5,
 "MailDelivery(Subsys|System)")}' \
 		    $LTPTMP/tst_mail.res)

testcases/commands/mail/mail_tests.sh +0 -0

 	fi
 	##################################################################

Hi all, mail02 and mail03 tests non-existed host and non-existed username in the test. However in some systems (at least in RHEL6), they both fails because of the sender name of the returned letter is "Mail Delivery System" instead of "Mail Delivery Subsys", which makes RC1 to be zero and fail the test. The patch fixes this issue.

Signed-off-by Caspar Zhang <[email protected]>

---
 testcases/commands/mail/mail_tests.sh |    4 ++--
 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

testcases/commands/mail/mail_tests.sh +1 -1

index 53a5d90..c30e2c3 100755
@@ -169,7 +169,7 @@ else
 		RC1=$(awk '/^>N/ {IGNORECASE=1; print match($3, "Mailer-Daemon")}' \
 		    $LTPTMP/tst_mail.res)
 	else
-		RC1=$(awk '/^>N/ {IGNORECASE=1; print match($3 $4 $5,
 "MailDeliverySubsys")}' \
+		RC1=$(awk '/^>N/ {IGNORECASE=1; print match($3 $4 $5,
 "MailDelivery(Subsys|System)")}' \
 		    $LTPTMP/tst_mail.res)

testcases/commands/mail/mail_tests.sh +1 -1

 	fi

@@ -250,7 +250,7 @@ else
 		RC1=$(awk '/^>N/ {IGNORECASE=1; print match($3, "Mailer-Daemon")}' \
 		    $LTPTMP/tst_mail.res)
 	else
-		RC1=$(awk '/^>N/ {IGNORECASE=1; print match($3 $4 $5,
 "MailDeliverySubsys")}' \
+		RC1=$(awk '/^>N/ {IGNORECASE=1; print match($3 $4 $5,
 "MailDelivery(Subsys|System)")}' \
 		    $LTPTMP/tst_mail.res)

testcases/commands/mail/mail_tests.sh +0 -0

 	fi
 	##################################################################

Sorry for bothering, any comments on this patch?

Quoted 27 lines · Caspar Zhang

Hi all, mail02 and mail03 tests non-existed host and non-existed username in the test. However in some systems (at least in RHEL6), they both fails because of the sender name of the returned letter is "Mail Delivery System" instead of "Mail Delivery Subsys", which makes RC1 to be zero and fail the test. The patch fixes this issue.

Signed-off-by Caspar Zhang<[email protected]>

---
  testcases/commands/mail/mail_tests.sh |    4 ++--
  1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

testcases/commands/mail/mail_tests.sh +1 -1

index 53a5d90..c30e2c3 100755
@@ -169,7 +169,7 @@ else
  		RC1=$(awk '/^>N/ {IGNORECASE=1; print match($3, "Mailer-Daemon")}' \
  		    $LTPTMP/tst_mail.res)
  	else
-		RC1=$(awk '/^>N/ {IGNORECASE=1; print match($3 $4 $5,
 "MailDeliverySubsys")}' \
+		RC1=$(awk '/^>N/ {IGNORECASE=1; print match($3 $4 $5,
 "MailDelivery(Subsys|System)")}' \
  		    $LTPTMP/tst_mail.res)

fi

Quoted 11 lines

testcases/commands/mail/mail_tests.sh +1 -1

@@ -250,7 +250,7 @@ else
  		RC1=$(awk '/^>N/ {IGNORECASE=1; print match($3, "Mailer-Daemon")}' \
  		    $LTPTMP/tst_mail.res)
  	else
-		RC1=$(awk '/^>N/ {IGNORECASE=1; print match($3 $4 $5,
 "MailDeliverySubsys")}' \
+		RC1=$(awk '/^>N/ {IGNORECASE=1; print match($3 $4 $5,
 "MailDelivery(Subsys|System)")}' \
  		    $LTPTMP/tst_mail.res)

fi
##################################################################

Hi Caspar,

I reviewed/verified your patch and it seems to be working fine. I verified it on RHEL6 and both mail02 and mail03 tests are passing now. I believe it can be merged upstream.
Garrett, Any comments?

Quoted 6 lines · Shubham Goyal

Hi Caspar,

I reviewed/verified your patch and it seems to be working fine. I verified it on RHEL6 and both mail02 and mail03 tests are passing now. I believe it can be merged upstream.
Garrett, Any comments?

I guess... there's no apparent rhyme nor reason to GNU/Linux
userland software development, so I'm not going to fight these issues anymore.
The LSB should maintain these tests and standardize things if
anyone really cares like the opengroup folks do for all of Unix. Thanks,
-Garrett

Alright Garrett..., so how should we take the patches in userland arena in future (including this one from Caspar)?
I mean should they be reviewed and merged upstream? Do LSB currently involved in maintaining them?

Quoted 4 lines · Shubham Goyal

Alright Garrett..., so how should we take the patches in userland arena in future (including this one from Caspar)?
I mean should they be reviewed and merged upstream? Do LSB currently involved in maintaining them?

(this is going to seem like a bit of a rant, so please bear with me...)

I don't know if the LSB actually has a test suite, but they should really get into the business of producing a test suite, because the LSB is mocked (in some circles) for being an excuse for a standards committee.

FreeBSD devs (for sure) and many Linux devs know that there isn't a lot of decision making that goes into making Linux consistent across all platforms. Someone needs to herd all of the cats together and provide a means of testing standardization for these things (again, LSB) because then the quality element will properly trickle down in the GNU/Linux community.

Right now everything's too ad hoc and messy for anyone depending on behavior to actually depend on Linux to remain constant over an extended period of time. That's one reason why (apart from GPL licensing) that people stay away from Linux: it's consistently inconsistent.

Thanks,
-Garrett

Alright Garrett.., I can understand your concerns on quality standardization and consistency across multiple platforms. But how do we conclude my below question for now?

@Caspar: Any comments from your side?

Thanks,
Shubham

Quoted 28 lines

Quoted 4 lines · Shubham Goyal

Alright Garrett..., so how should we take the patches in userland arena in future (including this one from Caspar)?
I mean should they be reviewed and merged upstream? Do LSB currently involved in maintaining them?

(this is going to seem like a bit of a rant, so please bear with me...)

I don't know if the LSB actually has a test suite, but they should really get into the business of producing a test suite, because the LSB is mocked (in some circles) for being an excuse for a standards committee.

FreeBSD devs (for sure) and many Linux devs know that there isn't a lot of decision making that goes into making Linux consistent across all platforms. Someone needs to herd all of the cats together and provide a means of testing standardization for these things (again, LSB) because then the quality element will properly trickle down in the GNU/Linux community.

Right now everything's too ad hoc and messy for anyone depending on behavior to actually depend on Linux to remain constant over an extended period of time. That's one reason why (apart from GPL licensing) that people stay away from Linux: it's consistently inconsistent.

Thanks,
-Garrett

Alright Garrett.., I can understand your concerns on quality standardization and consistency across multiple platforms. But how do we conclude my below question for now?

@Caspar: Any comments from your side?

Thanks,
Shubham

Quoted 29 lines

Quoted 5 lines · Shubham Goyal

Alright Garrett..., so how should we take the patches in userland arena in
future (including this one from Caspar)?
I mean should they be reviewed and merged upstream? Do LSB currently involved in maintaining them?

(this is going to seem like a bit of a rant, so please bear with me...)

I don't know if the LSB actually has a test suite, but they should really get into the business of producing a test suite, because the LSB is mocked (in some circles) for being an excuse for a standards committee.

FreeBSD devs (for sure) and many Linux devs know that there isn't a lot of decision making that goes into making Linux consistent across all platforms. Someone needs to herd all of the cats together and provide a means of testing standardization for these things (again, LSB) because then the quality element will properly trickle down in the GNU/Linux community.

Right now everything's too ad hoc and messy for anyone depending on behavior to actually depend on Linux to remain constant over an extended period of time. That's one reason why (apart from GPL licensing) that people stay away from Linux: it's consistently inconsistent.

Thanks,
-Garrett