Hello, * Paul Eggert wrote on Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 06:47:07PM CET: > Stepan Kasal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Should AC_PATH_FILE be added to Autoconf? > > I'm fine either way. It is tempting to remove the executable-bit test > entirely, though.
FWIW, I'd be for AC_PATH_FILE (which would be the brother of AC_CHECK_FILE, and just as useless in cross compiling situations), or just not providing any macro. This particular use case seems so special that a test -f /usr/sbin/bosboot should give the right answer. And if I can't execute it without changing privileges, I can't assume my $PATH has any resemblance to the one the privileged person has. This seems to go far away from the "test just like you would use it later" mantra. If we remove the executable-bit test, I bet we can hold our breath for somebody who has a non-executable $HOME/bin/foo in his $PATH. FWIW2, the other report that was cited in this thread (finding a library with AC_*_PROG) was really an abuse of the macro; AC_CHECK_LIB and others exist. My humble 2 cents. Cheers, Ralf
