Hello again,
on a second thought, I see my yesterday ideas can be improved. That's why
I answer to my own mail, sorry.
1) I wrote:
> ... s/x\{23\}/yes/ ... is not portable
Does anyone know whether I was true or not? The autoconf manual doesn't
mention this problem, and \{23\} is required by
* Stepan Kasal wrote on Fri, Jan 28, 2005 at 09:48:32AM CET:
>
> 1) I wrote:
>
> > ... s/x\{23\}/yes/ ... is not portable
>
> Does anyone know whether I was true or not? The autoconf manual doesn't
> mention this problem, and \{23\} is required by POSIX for BRE's.
I think it is safe to use (u
Hi,
On Fri, Jan 28, 2005 at 10:30:27AM +0100, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> > > ... s/x\{23\}/yes/ ... is not portable
...
> I think it is safe to use [...]
so I was just wrong, sorry.
Stepan
___
Autoconf mailing list
Autoconf@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.o
Stepan Kasal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 1) I wrote:
>
>> ... s/x\{23\}/yes/ ... is not portable
>
> Does anyone know whether I was true or not? The autoconf manual doesn't
> mention this problem, and \{23\} is required by POSIX for BRE's.
Older BSD seds don't support it, if memory serves.
Y
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
The coreutils 5.3.0 testsuite has a test (tests/install/trap) that wants
to trap SIGCHLD to detect an infinite loop in install(1) when SIGCHLD was
ignored. But SIGCHLD is not one of the portable signal numbers (on the
systems I have access to, it is 1
