Luca Barbato <[email protected]> writes: > On 29/12/11 18:57, Ronald S. Bultje wrote: >> Hi, >> >> 2011/11/21 Måns Rullgård<[email protected]>: >>> Luca Barbato<[email protected]> writes: >>> >>>> On 21/11/11 15:09, Måns Rullgård wrote: >>>>> I don't think this is the right place for a basic tutorial on shell >>>>> syntax. >>>> >>>> I think it might be a shell specific glitch, dash is quite known for >>>> those... >>> >>> We are also not the bug tracker for dash. >> >> fate.txt isn't the right place, but I think this fits in the FAQ quite >> well. It's not the first time this comes up. > > Something like > > Q: I'm using a non fully POSIX compliant shell (dash, solaris sh, ...) > and it does not work properly with FATE or configure. > > A: We are using a number of standard and widespread POSIX features, > sadly certain shells do not completely support them and do not behave > properly, please use {bash? bb?} instead.
The matter at hand has nothing to do with POSIX compliance. It is simply incorrect use of *any* normal shell on the user's part. We might as well add specific instructions to not write --enalbe with --enable is intended. Someone might do that and not see what they did wrong. -- Måns Rullgård [email protected] _______________________________________________ libav-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
