In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>you write:
> Mo McKinlay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Actually, what I find more amusing is the fact that BSD is a free
> > replacement for UNIX. Which is exactly what the GNU project aims for,
> > albeit with different licensing terms. I fail to see
[ On Saturday, May 13, 1900 at 15:08:52 (CDT), Michael Sokolov wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: rfc: new libgcc build mechanism
>
> System V and Pure BSD are just like the USA and USSR during the Cold War. We,
> the Pure BSD camp, will never have anything from Missed'em-five. That
Michael Sokolov wrote:
>
> Alex Hornby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Does anyone have a pure 4.3BSD system connected up to the net?
>
> I do, of course, and not just one machine but a full machine room of them.
> Absolutely pure in every way: I have my own classful net (class C, but still a
> Absolutely right! You got it!
>
> System V and Pure BSD are just like the USA and USSR during the Cold War. We,
Last time I checked, the Cold War was kinda over ...
> the Pure BSD camp, will never have anything from Missed'em-five. That's why we
> are *pure* BSD. Being SysVile-free is what
Akim Demaille, who I gather is the autoconf maintainer (please correct me if
I'm wrong), has stated on the gcc mailing list, which I subscribe to, that he
didn't know much about traditional and pure UNIX systems (traditional and pure
for me, for you I guess ancient and broken) and wanted to learn
Donn Terry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sort of as a poll: on what systems is the getconf
> command not present [...]
4.3BSD.
--
Michael Sokolov Harhan Engineering Laboratory
Public Service AgentInternational Free Computing Task Force
International Engineerin
Alex Hornby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Does anyone have a pure 4.3BSD system connected up to the net?
I do, of course, and not just one machine but a full machine room of them.
Absolutely pure in every way: I have my own classful net (class C, but still a
real full C, not a /24 chunk of someon
Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Because sh5, as indicated by its name, is the System V shell. It will
> not be found on a pure BSD system. Similarly, ksh, the Korn shell, is
> a Bell Labs invention made well after the BSD split.
>
> Systems like Ultrix have sh5 because, although t
Mo McKinlay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Actually, what I find more amusing is the fact that BSD is a free
> replacement for UNIX. Which is exactly what the GNU project aims for,
> albeit with different licensing terms. I fail to see how BSD *can* be
> "pure UNIX", when "pure UNIX" is exactly wha
> > "Paul" == Paul D Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Paul> I'm a little concerned that the & token isn't supported by all
> Paul> versions of sed, either, but I couldn't find any
> Paul> examples... anyone have thoughts on the portability of that?
>
> Hm, I never heard of portability issu
that's
included using multiple -f options seems the least onerous
to me.)
Donn
> -Original Message-
> From: Felix Lee [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2000 6:23 PM
> To: Donn Terry
> Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED] '; '[EMAIL PROTECTED
Felix Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> cc_0=`echo "$(CC)" | sed -e 's/^/cc0:/'`
> # or this:
> #cc_0=testing
>
> PREPEND=sed -e 's/^/pre:/'
> FLAGS=
> first:
> make $(FLAGS) next
> next:
> echo "$(CC)"
ok, on second thought, a bet
> "Paul" == Paul D Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Paul> I'm a little concerned that the & token isn't supported by all
Paul> versions of sed, either, but I couldn't find any
Paul> examples... anyone have thoughts on the portability of that?
Hm, I never heard of portability issues on that
> "Russ" == Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Russ> The next interesting question would be if ksh alters its
Russ> behavior if invoked as sh instead of as ksh. Hm. (Thanks for
Russ> the note; I was vaguely aware of that but had forgotten it when
Russ> I was writing the last message.)
Donn Terry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> SUBDIR_FLAGS_TO_PASS = $(ORDINARY_FLAGS_TO_PASS) \
> "CC=$$(echo @cc_set_by_configure@ |
> $(PREPEND_DOTDOT_TO_RELATIVE_PATHS) )"
oh, I see. you didn't mention @cc_set_by_configure@ in your
original example. ok. hmm...
this is ugly, but seems to work,
I see where we're miscommunicating here.
Details below.
> Donn Terry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > I don't follow. The inner echo outputs the value of the
> > CC macro, and munges it for the "stage" change. The outer
> > echo makes it a string (as opposed to a command to be
> > executed) to pass it
Donn Terry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> That would be nice... in fact configure HAS done a meta
> build to presumably fix as much as it can. However, CC can
> be passed in on the make command line, and thus needs to be
> munged at make time, so the munging needs to be in the makefile.
or you can use a
Donn Terry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I don't follow. The inner echo outputs the value of the
> CC macro, and munges it for the "stage" change. The outer
> echo makes it a string (as opposed to a command to be
> executed) to pass it to the second sed to do .. insertion.
sorry, that makes no sense t
Comments below.
(Remember, I didn't invent this mess, so I don't really
have all that much control over it. It's just that
I'm one of the relatively few who need it to work.)
If it's to be totally overhauled, it needs to be done
by (or with the active support of) a maintainer, so
it doesn't lang
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul D. Smith):
> I'm a little concerned that the & token isn't supported by all versions
> of sed, either, but I couldn't find any examples... anyone have thoughts
> on the portability of that?
s//&/ has been in ed forever, so it should be in all
versions of sed too.
--
Donn Terry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> PREPEND_DOTDOT_TO_RELATIVE_PATHS = sed \
> -e 's|^ *[^ /][^ /]*/|%&|' \
> -e 's| -B| -B%|g' \
> -e 's|% *[^- /]|%&|g' \
> -e 's|%% *|../|g' \
> -e 's|%||g'
> SUBDIR_FLAGS_TO_PASS = $(ORDINARY_FLAGS_TO_PASS) \
> "CC=$
ssage-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2000 10:16 AM
> To: Donn Terry
> Cc: 'Felix Lee'; 'Robert Lipe'; 'Russ Allbery '; '[EMAIL PROTECTED] ';
> '[EMAIL PROTECTED] '
> Subject: Re:
Oops... pressed the wrong reply button (I miss mh!).
The idea of $(BACKQUOTE) would allow it to also be null,
so substitution marks would only be present when needed.
(That wasn't clear... sorry.) (It would also help with
the plethora of \\ sequences in configure.)
That does have nested
%% Phil Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I haven't looked closely at this, but I will note right off that this:
dt> "CC=$$(echo $$(case '$(CC)' in (stage*) echo '$(CC)' | sed -e
>> is very non-portable.
pe> I have looked at this even less closely than you; perhaps I have
pe> mi
%% Phil Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Rats, the last one got away from me. Please ignore it.
>> I haven't looked closely at this, but I will note right off that this:
dt> "CC=$$(echo $$(case '$(CC)' in (stage*) echo '$(CC)' | sed -e
>> is very non-portable.
pe> I have looked at
--
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2000 10:07 AM
> To: Donn Terry
> Cc: 'Felix Lee'; 'Robert Lipe'; 'Russ Allbery '; '[EMAIL PROTECTED] ';
> '[EMAIL PROTECTED] '
> Subject: Re: rfc: new libgcc
> I haven't looked closely at this, but I will note right off that this:
>
> dt> "CC=$$(echo $$(case '$(CC)' in (stage*) echo '$(CC)' | sed -e
>
> is very non-portable. /bin/sh on Solaris (2.5.1 and 2.6 at least)
> can't handle either of these constructs (either $() or () in case match
%% Donn Terry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
dt> Please take a look at the Makefile in that area; the
dt> current code is using nested `` to create further command
dt> lines (not data files). I'll admit I haven't tried, but
dt> I'm not at all sure it can be done because the *creation*
dt>
%% Donn Terry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I haven't looked closely at this, but I will note right off that this:
dt> "CC=$$(echo $$(case '$(CC)' in (stage*) echo '$(CC)' | sed -e
is very non-portable. /bin/sh on Solaris (2.5.1 and 2.6 at least)
can't handle either of these constructs
we're
talking about.)
Donn
> -Original Message-
> From: Felix Lee [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2000 11:42 AM
> To: Donn Terry
> Cc: 'Robert Lipe'; 'Russ Allbery '; '[EMAIL PROTECTED] ';
> '[EMAIL PROTE
> > Just for the record and to provide more kindling, the XPG4/POSIX sh in
> > question is, in fact, the basic Korn shell (wrapped for viewing):
[snip]
> > And /bin/ksh is always present (SUNWcsu == core Solaris).
[snip]
>
> The next interesting question would be if ksh alters its behavior if
> i
On Tue, 9 May 2000, Felix Lee wrote:
>
> perhaps it would be nice to set up a farm of assorted
> systems, available for general nonprofit freesoftware use,
> but I can't think of a reasonable way of doing it offhand.
> --
It would be very nice indeed, there is a small grouping of
Tru64 Linux and
Phil Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Just for the record and to provide more kindling, the XPG4/POSIX sh in
> question is, in fact, the basic Korn shell (wrapped for viewing):
> % uname -sr
> SunOS 5.8
> % ls -lF /usr/xpg4/bin/sh
> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 13 A
Donn Terry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Sort of as a poll: on what systems is the getconf
> command not present, and which ones have it but not
of the systems I have easy access to, these are the oldest
that have it and the newest that don't.
aix 4.2 /bin/getconf
hpux 10.01
--- Felix Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > PS/ I have a bizarre demand to make: does anybody know a means for me
> > to have an access to a wide set of old systems?
>
> how about, work for a company that supports them? cygnus
> has a couple of old systems l
Donn Terry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> The current partial solution involves having two the-same-but-different
> versions of the same string, with different levels of \ quoting
> of ` (to allow nesting of `).
what do you gain from nesting `` that you can't do by using
temp variables? I can't think of
Donn Terry wrote:
>
> Sort of as a poll: on what systems is the getconf
> command not present, and which ones have it but not
> in the default path? Since
> getconf CS_PATH
> is supposed to return the path to the POSIX conforming
That's the path all right. I think the exe name is needed...
Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> PS/ I have a bizarre demand to make: does anybody know a means for me
> to have an access to a wide set of old systems?
how about, work for a company that supports them? cygnus
has a couple of old systems lying around. no 4.3bsd though.
perhaps it would be
Donn
(And... to keep the lawyers happy, reminding you that
I'm speaking only for myself.)
> -Original Message-
> From: Robert Lipe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, May 08, 2000 8:13 PM
> To: Donn Terry
> Cc: 'Russ Allbery '; '[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(reasonably) in the context of SUBDIR_FLAGS_TO_PASS,
when symbolic links are not present.)
Donn
> -Original Message-
> From: Robert Lipe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, May 08, 2000 8:13 PM
> To: Donn Terry
> Cc: 'Russ Allbery '; '[EMAIL PROTECTED]
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>you write:
> Thanks for the feedback. But I am still suspicious. There are way
> too many myths around Autoconf, and I'm willing to believe what I see.
> Have you really tried?
Yes. 4.3BSD and its immediate descendants were my primary development
platform
Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> The POSIX-compliant Bourne shell on a Solaris system is located in
> /usr/xpg4/bin/sh and is part of an extra optional package. There is no
> extra charge for this package, but it is also not part of a minimal OS
> install and therefore some folks may not have
> "Ian" == Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Akim> Why can't we expect sh5 being available?
Ian> Because sh5, as indicated by its name, is the System V shell. It
Ian> will not be found on a pure BSD system. Similarly, ksh, the Korn
Ian> shell, is a Bell Labs invention made well
Does anyone have a pure 4.3BSD system connected up to the net? If so
why not give the doubters a guest account so that they can see for
themselves.
Perhaps an ls -l and uname -a of such a machine would be equally
satisfactory?
Alex.
From: Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 09 May 2000 11:37:29 +0200
Jeffrey> You can't depend on ksh or sh5 being available on 4.3BSD
Jeffrey> boxes and the 4.3BSD shell certainly does not support shell
Jeffrey> functions.
Why can't we expect sh5 being available?
Because
Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> "Jeffrey" == Jeffrey A Law <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Jeffrey> You can't depend on ksh or sh5 being available on 4.3BSD
> Jeffrey> boxes and the 4.3BSD shell certainly does not support shell
> Jeffrey> functions.
> Hi Jeff,
> Thanks for the fe
> "Jeffrey" == Jeffrey A Law <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Jeffrey> You can't depend on ksh or sh5 being available on 4.3BSD
Jeffrey> boxes and the 4.3BSD shell certainly does not support shell
Jeffrey> functions.
Hi Jeff,
Thanks for the feedback. But I am still suspicious. There are way
to
Jeffrey A Law <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You can't depend on ksh or sh5 being available on 4.3BSD boxes and the
> 4.3BSD shell certainly does not support shell functions.
Absolutely correct!
--
Michael Sokolov Harhan Engineering Laboratory
Public Service AgentInternational Free Co
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>you write:
> On May 8, 2000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael Sokolov) wrote:
>
> > Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> It is currently believed that every system has at least *some*
> >> shell implementation that supports functions [...]
>
>
> the GNU assumption that /bin/sh is the one and only shell
> leads to a permanent deadlock. Vendors don't want to break
> user's existant shell scripts, and there are some corner
> cases in the Bourne shell that are not completely compatible
> with a POSIX shell. Thus, vendors who have taken th
Donn Terry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm pretty sure that Solaris is POSIX conformant. However, the GNU
> assumption that /bin/sh is the one and only shell leads to a permanent
> deadlock. Vendors don't want to break user's existant shell scripts,
> and there are some corner cases in the Bo
Donn Terry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On a related topic: I'm fighting a bug in the gcc build process right
> now that is caused directly by the lack of the posix $() construct.
> (It's exactly the need to be able to do $(...$(...)...) , which can't be
> done with backtick (`) in any reasonabl
nn Terry
> -Original Message-
> From: Paul Eggert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, May 08, 2000 1:48 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: rfc: new libgcc build mechanism
>
>
>From:
From: Per Bothner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 08 May 2000 06:53:13 -0700
I do not see 4.3BSD as a reason to not use functions in shell scripts.
I can see good arguments on both sides of this question. A similar
question is whether an application should work with K&R C.
It used to be tha
> Date: Mon, 8 May 00 07:57:32 CDT
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael Sokolov)
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > 4.3BSD doesn't!
> >
> > Is /bin/sh the only Bourne shell-like shell available on the system?
> Yes! And
# > No! 4.3BSD doesn't have *anything* "extended" or SysVile, it is *absolutely
# > pure UNIX*!
#
# This is hilarious. Here we have somebody who calls 4.3BSD "pure UNIX"
# even though it contains such latter-day abominations like symlinks
# and long filesnames!
Actually, what I find more amusin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael Sokolov) writes:
> No! 4.3BSD doesn't have *anything* "extended" or SysVile, it is *absolutely
> pure UNIX*!
This is hilarious. Here we have somebody who calls 4.3BSD "pure UNIX"
even though it contains such latter-day abominations like symlinks
and long filesnames!
> to make that happen. "We don't care about 4.3BSD" is not an excuse. You have
> to in order to be able to say that you really work as GNU intended.
Nobody even implied this. Your response is way over the top, IMHO.
Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 4.3BSD doesn't!
>
> Is /bin/sh the only Bourne shell-like shell available on the system?
Yes! And it isn't "Bourne shell-like", it *is* *the* Bourne shell, by Steve
Bourne himself.
> No /bin/ksh, /bin/sh5 or some other extended shell that supports
On May 8, 2000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael Sokolov) wrote:
> Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> It is currently believed that every system has at least *some*
>> shell implementation that supports functions [...]
> 4.3BSD doesn't!
Is /bin/sh the only Bourne shell-like shell availabl
60 matches
Mail list logo
