On Mar 20, 2018, at 4:07 AM, R. Diez wrote:
>
> I know that Autoconf developers want to write extremely portable scripts. But
> that is a huge barrier for somebody like me. I am a user, not a shell expert.
Your argument attempts to have it both ways: Bourne and POSIX
On 22 January 2016 at 13:33, Marko Lindqvist wrote:
> When building a project on MSYS2 environment, my configure fails to
> find out that the winsock2.h is available there.
> Simple AC_CHECK_HEADER() for winsock2.h fails, and so would many
> standard macros if it was to be
On Tue, 20 Mar 2018, Russell Shaw wrote:
If autoconf'd programs required the end users to have an installation-shell
that is ported to all systems of interest, then the learning requirements of
autoconf users should be a lot less.
This has all been discussed many times before. If it had
On 20/03/18 22:53, Russell Shaw wrote:
On 20/03/18 21:07, R. Diez wrote:
...
Requiring a POSIX shell in the next version is an improvement, but POSIX is
too limiting to really help. It is 2018. No wonder so many people want to
ditch Autoconf!
Autoconf is hard to learn because becoming
On 20/03/18 21:07, R. Diez wrote:
...
Requiring a POSIX shell in the next version is an improvement, but POSIX is too
limiting to really help. It is 2018. No wonder so many people want to ditch
Autoconf!
Autoconf is hard to learn because becoming properly familiar with shell
programming
I saw in the recent Automake release notes that there’s a tentative plan that
Autoconf 2.0 will require at least a POSIX shell.
Herr Diez, is this close enough to “Bash” to suit your purposes?
That is, are you just looking for things like $() instead of ``, > or are you
intending to commit