Hi,
On Wed, Jan 19, 2005 at 08:16:51PM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > CVS Autoconf also tackled this issue, see
> > http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/autoconf-patches/2004-12/msg00057.html
...
> Unless I'm missing something, the above message from autoconf-patches
> does not solve this problem, s
Hi,
I have an idea for another AS_EXECUTABLE_P improvement. The following
explanation is somewhat complicated, but I couldn't help.
On systems supporting `test -x', AS_EXECUTABLE_P is
{ test -f $1 && test -x $1; }dnl
Let me remind, that test -x alone wouldn't be enough, because
it would
On Wed, 2005-01-19 at 20:17 -0500, Wil Turner wrote:
> I hope someone out there can help me :)
>
> We recently modified a software library to include some functionality
> that, on OS X, requires the "-framework Carbon" link flag. It would be
> nice if users of our library didn't have to add this
"Eli Zaretskii" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 12:35:08 +0100
>> From: Stepan Kasal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Cc: Eric Blake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, autoconf@gnu.org, bug-texinfo@gnu.org
>>
>> test -f tex.exe && test -x tex.exe
>
> This will work, but is redundant: it's enou
Stepan Kasal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 1) Is `test -d' portable enough? The manual doesn't say the contrary.
Yes, it's been around for ages.
> 2) The autoconf manual says you cannot use `test ! -d' with `if'.
Where does it say that? I couldn't find it.
__
On Thu, 2005-01-20 at 16:42 -0800, Paul Eggert wrote:
> Stepan Kasal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > 1) Is `test -d' portable enough? The manual doesn't say the contrary.
>
> Yes, it's been around for ages.
How about portability of "test -d" being applied to "special
files" (char/block device
