Re: autoconf 2.49c fails if '.' is in PATH

[Earnie Boyd]

Akim Demaille wrote:
> 
> >>>>> "Tim" == Tim Van Holder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> Tim> Yes and no. The reason we try to use 'test -x' is so that 'test
> Tim> -x foo' will pick up foo.exe. I had not thought of this finding
> Tim> directories (then again, I don't have . in my path). I agree this
> Tim> is a serious problem; even with no '.'  in the PATH
> 
> Absolutely.
> 
> But I never read explicitly your environment also has this problem.
> Has it, or has it not?  Because we can
> 
> Unix:
> test -x && test -f

This test would work for Cygwin as well.


> 
> DOS says no to test -x directory
> test -x && :
> 

This wouldn't work text -x directory returns true.

> DOS says yes to test -x directory
> test -x && test ! -d

This test would work for Cygwin.


There is a caveat to "would work".  If I have executable foo.exe and
directory foo then both tests returns false.  Given this, I don't see
anyway out of `((test -x foo.exe && test -f foo.exe) || (test -x foo &&
test -f foo))'.

Earnie.

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com