Eric Blake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > According to Jim Meyering on 4/22/2008 3:42 AM: > | I'll probably change the instructions in README-hacking to mention > | that you may have to run "bash ./bootstrap" rather than > | > | $ ./bootstrap > | > | if your system's /bin/sh is substandard. > > Sounds reasonable, since there are already a number of other hacking > instructions to follow. > > | Plus, maybe be a test to detect the broken shell and to warn you > | that you need to invoke the script differently. > > Absolutely; autoconf does a good job at this (and you can use the > resulting configure or config.status to get a good idea of what the code > should look like). > > | An alternative is to encumber bootstrap with shell-selection > | code and make it re-exec itself using a sufficiently functional shell. > | But that too may fail, so I don't see the point. > > Is it worth writing bootstrap.m4sh, and running it through autom4te to get > the shell selection code from autoconf with minimal effort on your part? > You'd still probably want to check in the generated bootstrap script, though.
That's tempting -- and maybe better in a way -- but not enough to outweigh the penalty of checking in the generated code. _______________________________________________ Bug-coreutils mailing list Bug-coreutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-coreutils
