> From: Alexandre Duret-Lutz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2002 16:58:00 +0200
>
> FWIW, I've installed CVS Automake on Solaris 8 today and fixed a
> few things until `make check' succeed. Still that was with perl
> 5.6, and without libtool/texinfo/gcj (32 tests were skipped), so
> I g
>>> "Paul" == Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
Paul> I have to get Automake working on my usual platform
Paul> (Solaris 8). Automake is badly broken right now (it
Paul> assumes Perl 5.6, it assumes GNU make, and probably some
Paul> other unportable assumptions like that).
FWIW
> From: Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 04 Sep 2002 10:45:05 +0200
>
> The Autoconf documentation was documenting how to work around the
> CDPATH issues without `unset', because in Makefiles that's usually
> what's done. For instance, with CVS Automake:
>
> % grep CDPATH Makefile
> am
> "Akim" == Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Akim> The Autoconf documentation was documenting how to work around
Akim> the CDPATH issues without `unset', because in Makefiles that's
Akim> usually what's done.
More generally, because it is meant to be a `problem - solution' list,
and
| > From: Eric Siegerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| > Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 13:46:05 -0400
| >
| > Looks good, except that the leading "." to pacify zsh got lost
| > in the shuffle.
|
| The zsh "." issue is still in there, though a bit terser.
|
| > > -$unset CDPATH || CDPATH=:
| > > +$unset CDPATH
> From: Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 25 Jul 2002 13:04:11 +0200
>
> Wow. Paul, would you install this in autoconf.texi?
OK, I installed this patch. I hope it covers everything.
2002-09-02 Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* doc/autoconf.texi (Limitations of Builtins): Ex
> "Paul" == Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Paul> In the long run I'm not sure the Autoconf manual is the right
Paul> place for a "portable shell programming HOWTO".
We agree, but this section has to reach its critical mass before being
cut from Autoconf's documentation itself.
P
Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> And it's not simply a matter of a personal preference for brevity: in
> some cases, the canonical paths are not portable from one host to
> another, whereas the logical paths are. This is due to NFS automounting
> gymnastics. I've heard that the same th
> Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2002 15:25:36 -0500
> From: "Mark D. Roth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> On Thu Aug 01 13:46 2002 -0400, Eric Siegerman wrote:
> > Hmmm, time for a CANONICALIZE_PATHNAME macro? Bonus: it could be
> > made to work with pathnames other than directories.
>
> This is a really good idea
> From: Alexandre Duret-Lutz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2002 15:12:33 +0200
> :( :( :(
>
> Why replace an illustrated discussion of the isse with `Autoconf
> will get it right for you.'? Why not showing people the
> commands they should use outside Autoconf?
In the long run I'm no
On Thu Aug 01 07:20 2002 -0700, Paul Eggert wrote:
> > > So it appears to me that the "proper" fix is to try "cd -P DIR" first,
> > > and to fall back on plain "cd DIR" if that doesn't work.
> >
> > Sounds good. Please see the attached patch.
>
> On second thought, I don't think this is wise.
>>> "Paul" == Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
Paul> Simplify the description of $CDPATH.
:( :( :(
Why replace an illustrated discussion of the isse with `Autoconf
will get it right for you.'? Why not showing people the
commands they should use outside Autoconf?
I tend to use t
> From: Eric Siegerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 13:46:05 -0400
>
> Looks good, except that the leading "." to pacify zsh got lost
> in the shuffle.
The zsh "." issue is still in there, though a bit terser.
> > -$unset CDPATH || CDPATH=:
> > +$unset CDPATH || CDPATH=$PATH_SEPA
On Thu, Aug 01, 2002 at 07:20:33AM -0700, Paul Eggert wrote:
> -Setting @code{CDPATH} to the empty value is not enough for most shells.
> -A simple path separator is enough except for @code{zsh}, which prefers a
> -leading dot:
> [...]
> +To work around the problem, Autoconf-generated scripts unse
> From: "Mark D. Roth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 08:25:39 -0500
>
> The -P option isn't listed in the ksh docs under Solaris or AIX.
> Only OpenBSD seems to document this.
It's also documented in Bash 2.05b. This feature was recently added
to Bash (presumably in response to P
On Thu Jul 25 01:10 2002 -0700, Paul Eggert wrote:
> I don't see how that patch solves the problem in general. It has
> a special case for $1 = ., and doesn't handle any other case.
Good point.
> I looked at the ksh source code, since I couldn't believe that it
> always has this problem. I di
| > From: "Mark D. Roth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| > Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 22:02:53 -0500
| >
| > On Tue Jul 23 13:31 2002 -0700, Paul Eggert wrote:
| > > I'd rather try $PWD, then pwd, and fall back on /bin/pwd only if the
| > > other two methods don't work. That way, the names will be nicer.
| >
| > From: "Mark D. Roth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| > Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2002 20:31:13 -0500
| >
| > I've attached a patch that does this. It passes the test suite, so if
| > I don't hear any objections in the next couple of days, I'll commit
| > this to CVS.
|
| I don't like this patch, for two rea
> From: "Mark D. Roth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 19:57:35 -0500
>
> Please look over the attached patch and let me know what you think.
I don't see how that patch solves the problem in general. It has
a special case for $1 = ., and doesn't handle any other case.
I looked at
On Wed Jul 24 02:03 2002 -0700, Paul Eggert wrote:
> OK, now I understand the problem. I also see that the problem occurs
> even in absolute path names. For example, with /bin/ksh on Solaris 8:
>
> 33-sic $ ls -ld /tmp/usr/local/src/dummy-0.1/../../common
> drwxrwxr-x 3 eggert eggert
> From: "Mark D. Roth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 22:02:53 -0500
>
> On Tue Jul 23 13:31 2002 -0700, Paul Eggert wrote:
> > I'd rather try $PWD, then pwd, and fall back on /bin/pwd only if the
> > other two methods don't work. That way, the names will be nicer.
>
> That won't
On Tue Jul 23 13:31 2002 -0700, Paul Eggert wrote:
> I'd rather try $PWD, then pwd, and fall back on /bin/pwd only if the
> other two methods don't work. That way, the names will be nicer.
That won't solve the problem, specifically because $PWD and pwd give
the "nice" path names. The problem is
> From: "Mark D. Roth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2002 13:08:51 -0500
> We might be able to compensate for this by trying
> /bin/pwd, but only using the result if it exists successfully.
I'd rather try $PWD, then pwd, and fall back on /bin/pwd only if the
other two methods don't wor
23 matches
Mail list logo
