>>>>> "Markus" == Markus F X J Oberhumer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Markus> After a look through the sources it seems that AS_EXECUTABLE_P Markus> should use both "test -f" and "test -x" on systems that Markus> support it, and "test -f" otherwise (DOS, Win, ...) Good call, I was going to text ! -x. Does everybody agree? It's going to be fun to implement :(...
- Re: autoconf 2.49c fails if '.' is in PATH Alexandre Oliva
- Re: autoconf 2.49c fails if '.' is in PATH Gary V. Vaughan
- Re: autoconf 2.49c fails if '.' is in PATH Akim Demaille
- Re: autoconf 2.49c fails if '.' is in PATH Alexandre Oliva
- Re: autoconf 2.49c fails if '.' is in PATH Akim Demaille
- Re: autoconf 2.49c fails if '.' is in PATH Alexandre Oliva
- RE: autoconf 2.49c fails if '.' is in PATH Akim Demaille
- RE: autoconf 2.49c fails if '.' is in PATH Tim Van Holder
- Re: autoconf 2.49c fails if '.' is in PATH Alexandre Oliva
- RE: autoconf 2.49c fails if '.' is in PATH Bernard Dautrevaux
- Re: autoconf 2.49c fails if '.' is in PATH Akim Demaille
- Re: autoconf 2.49c fails if '.' is in PATH Richard Dawe
- Re: autoconf 2.49c fails if '.' is in PATH Akim Demaille
- Re: autoconf 2.49c fails if '.' is in PATH Earnie Boyd
- Re: autoconf 2.49c fails if '.' is in PATH Akim Demaille
- RE: autoconf 2.49c fails if '.' is in PATH Bernard Dautrevaux
- Re: autoconf 2.49c fails if '.' is in PATH Akim Demaille