What would you like done on what version of Autoconf and what version of Solaris
and do you want the native compiler tested or will GCC be ok?
Let me know and I'll see what can be done.
Regards
David
Pavel Roskin wrote:
>
> Hello!
>
> The following configurations have recently passed the te
Hello!
The following configurations have recently passed the testsuite:
Linux/PPC-1999, bash 2.03
Linux/PPC-1999, ash 0.2
Linux/PPC-1999, pdksh 5.2.13
Linux/PPC-1999, zsh 3.0.5
RedHat Linux 6.2, bash 1.14.7
Cygwin 1.1.4, /bin/sh
HP-UX 10.20, bash 2.04
HP-UX 10.20, /bin/sh
HP-UX 10.20, /bin/ksh
On Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 10:16:07AM +0200, Akim Demaille wrote:
> > "Gary" == Gary V Vaughan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Gary> Actually, cvs libtool is still much happier with autoconf-2.13
> Gary> than cvs autoconf =(O| I am hoping that a 2.50 compatible
> Gary> libtool-1.4 won't be too f
Hello, Earnie!
On Wed, 11 Oct 2000, Earnie Boyd wrote:
> --- Pavel Roskin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Since EXEEXT="" makes "cp" fail it's not a good choice. So instead of
> > doing "test contest -ef contest.exe" do "cp contest contest.ac_" and
> > reverse the logic (i.e. if "cp" fails w
* Pavel Roskin
| Since EXEEXT="" makes "cp" fail it's not a good choice. So instead
| of doing "test contest -ef contest.exe" do "cp contest contest.ac_"
| and reverse the logic (i.e. if "cp" fails we use ".exe")
Well, I don't think this is such a good idea. What if the Cygwin port
of ``cp'' is s
