On Fri, 8 Feb 2002 18:16:57 -0800, Greg Stein wrote: >On Fri, Feb 08, 2002 at 10:46:46PM +1000, Brian Havard wrote: >>... >> > - elif test -f "$withval/apr-config"; then >> > + elif test -x "$withval/apr-config"; then >> > apr_found="yes" >> > apr_config="$withval/apr-config" >> > elif test -x "$withval" && $withval --help > /dev/null 2>&1 ; then >> >> Was there any actual need to do this? I ask because it breaks the OS/2 >> build due to the fact that OS/2 has no 'x' bit in the file system. "test >> -x" is only true if the file has a .exe extension which apr-config >> obviously does not. > >Well, the apr-config file is generated, so it normally comes out without an >executable flag. We then have a chmod +x (see at the end of configure.in) >which should get run during the generation step. > >I switched to -x to avoid the case of an apr-config that wasn't make >executable, and to avoid thinking we have a valid apr-config and then try to >run the thing. > >That said: I'd be fine with loosening it up to just -f, as long as you put >in some "dnl" comments on why we chose -f rather than -x. (otherwise, three >years from now, somebody will go and patch it to put the -x flags back in >there :-)
Either that or make the test switch adjust appropriately for the platform. I'll see if I can figure out a nice way to do that. -- ______________________________________________________________________________ | Brian Havard | "He is not the messiah! | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | He's a very naughty boy!" - Life of Brian | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
