Keep a log in the file lab3.txt of what you do in the
lab so that you can reproduce the results later. This should not
merely be a transcript of what you typed: it should be more like a
true lab notebook, in which you briefly note down what you did and
what happened.
You're helping to build an application containing a shell script
that invokes the ls
command to get file status.
Your application is running atop the Maroon Chapeau Enterprise Linux 8 distribution, which uses the ls implementation supplied by Coreutils 8.29.
You've been
running into the problem that some users create a shell
script la with the following contents:
#!/bin/sh
exec ls -a "$@"
For these users the command la -A is therefore
equivalent to ls -a -A. Unfortunately, with
Coreutils ls, the -a option always overrides
the -A option regardless of which option is given first,
so the -A option has no effect in la. For
example, if the current directory has two files
named .foo and bar, the command la
-A outputs four lines, one each
for ., .., .foo,
and bar. These users want la -A to output
just two lines instead, one for .foo and one
for bar. That is, for ls they want a
later -A option to override any earlier -a
option, and vice versa.
You've been asked to look into the problem and fix it.
You discover that the problem is a known bug with Coreutils, Bug#30963. The bug report has a patch intended for publication in a later Coreutils release; see its Message #10. You don't want to wait for the later release to be installed on your system, so you decide to build a copy of Coreutils 8.29 with just this patch added, as follows:
make at the top level of your source
tree, so that you build (but do not install) the fixed version. For each
command that gets executed, explain why it needed to be executed (or
say that it wasn't neeeded).ls works and that the
installed ls doesn't. Use
the test case that comes with the patch.Q1. Does the patch improve the performance of ls
or make it worse? Briefly explain.
Q2. If your company adopts this patched version of Coreutils instead of the default one, what else should you watch out for? Might this new version of Coreutils introduce other problems with your application?
Consider the Python script
randline.py.
Q3. What happens when this script is invoked on an empty file like
/dev/null, and why?
Q4. What happens when this script is invoked with Python 3 rather
than Python 2, and why? (You can run Python 3 on the SEASnet hosts by
using the command python3 instead
of python.)
Write a new script shuf.py in the style
of randline.py; your script should implement the GNU
shuf
command that is part of GNU Coreutils.
You should already have a copy of the shuf
source code and documentation; look at the files you created in the
laboratory. However, GNU shuf is written in C, whereas
you want a Python implementation so that you can more easily add
new features to it.
Your implementation should support the following shuf
options, with the same behavior as GNU shuf:
--echo (-e),
--head-count (-n),
--repeat (-r),
and --help.
It should also support
any number (including zero) of non-option arguments, as well as
the argument "-" meaning standard input.
Your program need not support the other options of GNU shuf.
As with GNU shuf, your program
should report an error if given invalid arguments.
Your implementation of shuf.py should not import any
modules other than argparse,
string and the modules that randline.py
already imports.
Don't forget to change its usage message to
accurately describe the modified behavior.
Port your shuf.py implementation to Python 3. If you
have trouble with optparse under Python 3, you can use
the argparse module instead. Make sure that
your shuf.py still works with Python 2. Don't rewrite
it from scratch; make as few changes as is reasonable.
Submit the following files.
lab3.txt as described in the lab.hw3.txt containing the answer to questions
Q1 through Q4 noted above.shuf.py as described
in the homework.All files should be ASCII text files, with no carriage returns, and with no more than 80 columns per line. The shell command:
expand lab3.txt hw3.txt | awk '/\r/ || 80 < length'
should output nothing.