> Personally, at least for the time being, we don't care about HOST: as
> said by Pavel, only specific packages will need it, and they certainly
> need it so badly that they already perform their tests. And if they
> don't, the simple fact that Autoconf supports some HOST-path-sep test
> will not
> It seems to me that falling to `:' is way enough for this case.
I agree - as long as those systems where ';' is needed are able
to grok the test, that's fine. All other systems can happily use
':' as before (regardless of why they failed the test).
> > DOES pretend to do)? DJGPP can pretend to be unixy when it comes to pathseps,
> > but ONLY inside bash (granted, that's where it will matter most, but using ':'
> > because bash can handle it would break if used inside perl/m4/whatever).
> Since the test is run by bash and not by something els
On Jan 31, 2001, Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It seems to me that falling to `:' is way enough for this case.
I hope so.
--
Alexandre Oliva Enjoy Guarana', see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Red Hat GCC Developer aoliva@{cygnus.com, redhat.com}
CS PhD student
> "Alexandre" == Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Alexandre> Hmm... It's just occurred to me that this kind of test may
Alexandre> not work in general. AFAIK, some old Unices just won't run
Alexandre> shell-scripts like that; you have to explicitly specify the
Alexandre> shell th
On Jan 30, 2001, Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> if (PATH=.;`pwd`; conftest.sh); then
> # We like `;', let's use it.
> else if (PATH=.:`pwd`; conftest.sh); then
> # We like `:', let's use it.
> else
> # Get lost.
> fi
Hmm... It's just occurred to me that this kind of test may n
Akim Demaille wrote:
>
> > "Tim" == Tim Van Holder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Tim> I suppose so. My main point was that there were 2 different
> Tim> issues related to path separators (build & _HOST_), which the PR
> Tim> didn't seem to take into account.
>
> Personally, at least for t
> "Mark" == Mark E <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I'd like to advise you that it would be fair not to support
>> non-UNIX path separators on the build system.
Mark> Naturally, I'll have to disagree. I don't see why Autoconf
Mark> should care which path separator is used as long as Autoconf c
> "Tim" == Tim Van Holder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Tim> I suppose so. My main point was that there were 2 different
Tim> issues related to path separators (build & _HOST_), which the PR
Tim> didn't seem to take into account.
Personally, at least for the time being, we don't care about HOS
> "Akim" == Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Akim> Have you given a try to my suggestion of
Akim> if (PATH=.;`pwd`; conftest.sh); then
Arg, of course you didn't...
From: Mail Delivery System
Subject: Mail delivery failed: returning message to sender
To: akim@=
X-Sent: 5 days, 22
> > I'd like to volunteer to handle anything DOS/DJGPP-related if
> > possible.
>
> Thanks!
Same here.
> I'd like to advise you that it would be fair not to support non-UNIX path
> separators on the build system.
Naturally, I'll have to disagree. I don't see why Autoconf should care which
pat
> > I'd like to advise you that it would be fair not to support non-UNIX path
> > separators on the build system. Autoconf doesn't pretend to support such
> > systems.
> Then what's the point of supporting DJGPP, OS/2 or Mingw32 (which autoconf
I understand that Mingw32 is supported with the Cygw
> It's not called TARGET. It's called HOST. TARGET is only meaningful for
> compilers and other tools working together to create executables _for_ a
> particular platform.
OK - my bad.
> I'd like to advise you that it would be fair not to support non-UNIX path
> separators on the build system. Au
> cat #! $SHELL
> exit 0
> EOF
>
> chmod +x conftest.sh
>
> if (PATH=.;`pwd`; conftest.sh); then
> # We like `;', let's use it.
Slackware will like it :-)
It already has "." in $PATH for non-root users.
I don't see an alternative to using a separate directory.
But you conftest.s
Hello, Tim!
> I'd like to volunteer to handle anything DOS/DJGPP-related if
> possible.
Thanks!
> As far as bug 59 (the pathsep thing) goes, I'm already looking
> into a good way to do this. The way I see it, there are two
> different issues that need to be handled separately.
That's very insi
> "Tim" == Tim Van Holder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Tim> A big problem is deciding which pathsep is best in each case.
Tim> For the build pathsep, I'd originally thought to use a test for a
Tim> DOS/Win-ish environment (test -n "$COMSPEC$ComSpec"), but this
Tim> breaks for recent cygwin, as
> It would be shame if we release Autoconf with open bugs in the GNATS
> database.
>
> I tried yesterday to analyze or close what I felt I can. But I don't feel
> competent e.g. in the DOS and Fortran problems.
>
> So lets go to
> http://sources.redhat.com/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?database=autoconf
>
17 matches
Mail list logo
