On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 2:50 PM, Ángel González <[email protected]> wrote: > On 05/05/15 12:45, Dagobert Michelsen wrote: >> >> Hi Darshit, >> >> Am 05.05.2015 um 12:23 schrieb Darshit Shah<[email protected]>: >>> >>> So, is the issue because some platforms are shipping a non-compatible >>> version of sh, or is the script incorrectly using bash while only >>> claiming to use sh? >> >> The problem is the evaluation with $( ): >> bootstrap: syntax error at line 88: `me_=$’ unexpected >> >> The Solaris Bourne Shell is really one of the „very oldest“ >> non-POSIX-compatible >> Bourne shells: >> http://mywiki.wooledge.org/BashFAQ/082 >> >> Last time I talked with Jim Meyering about the problem (unfortunately >> off-list) >> he said that if you bootstrap stuff you are a developer which is expected >> to have >> bash at hand. Here, bash is considered similar to autotools which you also >> need >> only to bootstrap. >> >> Best regards > > > I don't think that we should spend any effort attempting to support > non-POSIX shells > (Solaris sh seems the only midly common under that category). > That said, it would be nice to have a nicer error message.
Happy to reiterate :-) Please don't waste time on shells that don't support $(...). I agree that it is important to die early when the selected shell is inadequate. I prefer to use the approach taken in gnulib's init.sh, which is used in most of coreutils' tests: http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/gnulib.git/tree/tests/init.sh
