| On Jan 31, 2001, Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | >>>>>> "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. | | Huh? Doh! s/-x/-d/g. | How about test -x $f && test ! -d $f ? Yeah, indeed. There are few chances to meet some other kind of special files in here. Still, `-f' is definitely better where we can use it. The question is, `is test -x my-dir positive on DOS environments'? If so, then on this arg the second `test' can be just `:'.
- 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
- Re: autoconf 2.49c fails if '.' is in PATH Alexandre Oliva
- RE: autoconf 2.49c fails if '.' is in PATH Tim Van Holder
- Re: autoconf 2.49c fails if '.' is in PATH Akim Demaille
- Re: autoconf 2.49c fails if '.' is in PATH Earnie Boyd