Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Bruce> Bootstrap-Bash could use a frozen version of configure.
> This means freezing at least one copy of Bash. Doable.
What about someone (probably a user of a machine that actually needs it)
writing a shell function inliner?
ltmain.sh could be postpr
Akim Demaille wrote:
> I don't agree. Autoconf does not use shell functions, it just says it
> will some day. If you want to use shell functions, don't do it
> pretending Autoconf did first :)
>
> Also, Autoconf will try to find a shell that supports functions.
Someone made the assertion that t
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Let
them install BASH and get out of our way. Both of them.
Bash uses configure.
And so does ash :-( which was my first thought for working around this
problem. On the other hand, is it so terrible to ask that those who
wish to continue using systems with 20-ye
> Let them install BASH and get out of our way.
As someone else pointed out, bash uses autoconf.
Also, while its good to talk about bringing up GNU environments on top
of proprietary ones, the long term view is to also think about
bringing them up on raw iron.
So, pick a small set of pr
> "Robert" == Robert Boehne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Robert> All, Hey, that's a relief, now we don't have to deal with this
Robert> issue anymore. I would be in favor of a) leaving the shell
Robert> functions in place, and b) making use of them more.
I don't agree. Autoconf does not use
On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 07:53:42AM -0800, Bruce Korb wrote:
> Akim Demaille wrote:
> > I don't agree. Autoconf does not use shell functions, it just says it
> > will some day. If you want to use shell functions, don't do it
> > pretending Autoconf did first :)
> >
> > Also, Autoconf will try to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Bash uses configure.
Bootstrap-Bash could use a frozen version of configure.
There certainly won't be any additions to the list of
systems with 15+ year old shells, so a bootstrap-bash
for hobbyists should work just fine.
__
All,
Hey, that's a relief, now we don't have to deal with this
issue anymore. I would be in favor of a) leaving the
shell functions in place, and b) making use of them more.
Thanks,
Robert
Bruce Korb wrote:
>
> Alexandre Duret-Lutz wrote:
>
> > Bruce> ... 20 year old shells are [not] too o
On Thu, 7 Nov 2002, Bruce Korb wrote:
> Alexandre Duret-Lutz wrote:
>
> > Bruce> ... 20 year old shells are [not] too old for continued
> > Bruce> support. Ick. How completely disgusting.
> >
> > Cheer up and read the Autoconf 2.54c announcement entirely :)
>
> You're right. I only read the f
Alexandre Duret-Lutz wrote:
> Bruce> ... 20 year old shells are [not] too old for continued
> Bruce> support. Ick. How completely disgusting.
>
> Cheer up and read the Autoconf 2.54c announcement entirely :)
You're right. I only read the first 100 lines or so. :-)
This is a decade overdue.
>>> "Bruce" == Bruce Korb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
Bruce> neither Autoconf nor Libtool want to be the first to say
Bruce> that 20 year old shells are too old for continued
Bruce> support. Ick. How completely disgusting.
Cheer up and read the Autoconf 2.54c announcement entirely :)
11 matches
Mail list logo
