Re: DOS path

2002-02-14 Thread Paul Eggert
> Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 14:49:01 + > From: John Poltorak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Again I must point out that the behaviour of ksh's echo could be > > considered broken; it requires an option to behave 'normally'. > > Is there a definitive view on this? POSIX 1003.2-1992 says that the resul

Re: DOS path

2002-02-14 Thread Thomas E. Dickey
On Thu, 14 Feb 2002, John Poltorak wrote: > > Probably because this is logged before config.site is run. > > Again I must point out that the behaviour of ksh's echo could be > > considered broken; it requires an option to behave 'normally'. > > Is there a definitive view on this? apparently not

Re: DOS path

2002-02-14 Thread Tim Van Holder
On Thu, 2002-02-14 at 15:49, John Poltorak wrote: > On Thu, Feb 14, 2002 at 03:07:41PM +0100, Tim Van Holder wrote: > > On Thu, 2002-02-14 at 14:09, John Poltorak wrote: > > > On Thu, Feb 14, 2002 at 01:31:06PM +0100, Tim Van Holder wrote: > > > > > > Yes, I have this line (with -E) in config.sit

Re: DOS path

2002-02-14 Thread John Poltorak
On Thu, Feb 14, 2002 at 03:07:41PM +0100, Tim Van Holder wrote: > On Thu, 2002-02-14 at 14:09, John Poltorak wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 14, 2002 at 01:31:06PM +0100, Tim Van Holder wrote: > > > > Yes, I have this line (with -E) in config.site, but config.log shows:- > > > > > > PATH: c:\us in > > P

Re: DOS path

2002-02-14 Thread Tim Van Holder
On Thu, 2002-02-14 at 14:09, John Poltorak wrote: > On Thu, Feb 14, 2002 at 01:31:06PM +0100, Tim Van Holder wrote: > > Yes, I have this line (with -E) in config.site, but config.log shows:- > > > PATH: c:\us in > PATH: c:\emx in > PATH: c:\usr\loca in > PATH: c:\os2 > PATH: . Probably because

Re: DOS path

2002-02-14 Thread John Poltorak
On Thu, Feb 14, 2002 at 01:31:06PM +0100, Tim Van Holder wrote: > > > I wouldn't go that far; autoconf currently supports ';' as pathsep > > > just fine. And in "most" places, I think it also handles a \ as dirsep. > > > > > > However, there will probably be places where a path is (accidentally

Re: DOS path

2002-02-14 Thread Tim Van Holder
On Thu, 2002-02-14 at 11:18, John Poltorak wrote: > On Thu, Feb 14, 2002 at 08:53:58AM +0100, Tim Van Holder wrote: > > On Thu, 2002-02-14 at 00:46, Paul Eggert wrote: > > > > From: John Poltorak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 20:21:20 + > > > > > > > > What is the recomme

Re: DOS path

2002-02-14 Thread John Poltorak
On Thu, Feb 14, 2002 at 08:53:58AM +0100, Tim Van Holder wrote: > On Thu, 2002-02-14 at 00:46, Paul Eggert wrote: > > > From: John Poltorak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 20:21:20 + > > > > > > What is the recommended way of treating a DOS path such as? :- > > > > > > c:\de

Re: DOS path

2002-02-13 Thread Tim Van Holder
On Thu, 2002-02-14 at 00:46, Paul Eggert wrote: > > From: John Poltorak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 20:21:20 + > > > > What is the recommended way of treating a DOS path such as? :- > > > > c:\def\ghij;k:\lm; > > > > > > Should some attempt be made to convert '\' to '/'

Re: DOS path

2002-02-13 Thread Paul Eggert
> From: John Poltorak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 20:21:20 + > > What is the recommended way of treating a DOS path such as? :- > > c:\def\ghij;k:\lm; > > > Should some attempt be made to convert '\' to '/' before running autoconf > or configure, That's what I'd do, yes.