Hi, me: > > test -z 1 && for ac_header in dummy Greg Wooledge: > I don't understand this "repair". test -z 1 will always return "false", > because "1" is not a zero-length string. So you might as well just comment > out the "for ac_header in dummy" line altogether.
If i disable the "for" line then the shell will ask me what i mean with "do". Like: bash: syntax error near unexpected token `do' But if i correct it syntactically so it matches man bash "for name [ in word ] ; do list ; done" and then prevent it from being executed then i hope to achieve the same effect which the bash implementation on Linux produces since about 6 years. The youngest Linux i could find which openly dislikes for ac_header in was a SuSE 7.2 from about 2001. Nevertheless, you do not need a Solaris to see the produce of autotools which does not comply to man bash resp. S.R. Bourne's original description of the shell. The ./configure script gets produced by autotools command ./bootstrap on Linux systems and it currently contains the incorrect gesture. There are two old forms of for-loops: for i ; do for i in item ... item ; do I cannot read from any man pages the correctness of for i in ; do which seems to be somehow ignored by modern bash. Nice gesture. But lets Joerg Schilling think i'd did not care for bugs. Old Linux fails, Solaris fails. This "for" is not portable. autotools claims to produce portable releases. That's why we have 600+ kB of ./configure shell code, after all. I don't know wether Joerg downloaded from our SVN and applied an own ./bootstrap or wether he unpacked a release tarball. About autotools on Solaris i can't say anything. But autotools on Linux produces a problematic ./configure . Well, it does not matter much. libburn won't compile on Solaris unless there would be a Linux sg emulator. With /dev/sg and ioctls and all. (Is there ?) Usually one has to program an adapter to the operating systems's lowlevel SCSI facilities. This remains handwork and demands some system knowledge. > It seems more likely that there's really some sort of mistake *before* > the "for" loop, which would mean tracking backward through 20000 lines > of ./configure code to try to find it... good luck with that. I got an antiquity online (some SuSE 6.x): $ uname -a Linux * 2.2.13 #1 Mon Nov 8 15:51:29 CET 1999 i686 unknown $ for i in ; do echo $i ; done bash: syntax error near unexpected token `;' $ for i in bash: syntax error near unexpected token `in' $ for i in 1 > do echo $i > done 1 $ Have a nice day :) Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
