Slooowly cycling through the list..
* Alexandre Oliva wrote on Sun, Jan 30, 2005 at 01:05:59AM CET:
> On Jan 27, 2005, Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Which systems do actually need libtool's --fallback-echo?
>
> Probably ones that didn't support shell functions either.
Nope.
* Alexandre Oliva wrote on Sun, Jan 30, 2005 at 01:05:59AM CET:
> On Jan 27, 2005, Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Which systems do actually need libtool's --fallback-echo?
>
> Probably ones that didn't support shell functions either. I don't
> recall exactly which systems requi
On Jan 27, 2005, Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Which systems do actually need libtool's --fallback-echo?
Probably ones that didn't support shell functions either. I don't
recall exactly which systems required --fallback-echo, but I do recall
it was added for a very good reason, gi
Which systems do actually need libtool's --fallback-echo?
(You can
grep -i '^echo=.*fallback-echo' libtool
to find out).
I would like to kill it, that would clean up initialization a bit.
Of those machines, which ones would have problems with this replacement:
(be it input size limitation, forg
* Ralf Wildenhues wrote on Thu, Jan 27, 2005 at 09:39:46AM CET:
>
> I have attached a small script, and encourage
> people to test it on all their shells they can find on their systems.
> It should reveal at least one working echo, and, in most cases, find
> builtins to do the job.
and here it is
