On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 05:33:56PM -0700, Mike Eberdt wrote: > Hi Christian, > > On 07/18/11 04:56, Christian Lohmaier wrote: > > > >Hi MIke, *, > > > >On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 9:34 PM, Mike Eberdt<libr...@comcast.net> wrote: > >> > >>Configure.in eventually gets parsed by /bin/sh, and on Free/Net/OpenBSD > >>/bin/sh is not synonymous with bash. Therefore, bash-isms in configure.in > >>can be problematic. > > > Oops, I mistyped; I meant to say that it is 'configure' (not > 'configure.in') that's getting parsed by /bin/sh. > > >I don't understand your patch then. > >-if test "$EUID" -eq "0" -a "z`uname -o 2>/dev/null`" = "zCygwin" ; then > >+# $EUID is a bash-ism, so we can't assume its existence. > >[...] > >+if test "z`uname -o 2>/dev/null`" = "zCygwin"&& test "$EUID" -eq 0; then > > > >So while you converted test "and" link to&&, the $EUID that according > >to your comment is a bashism still is used. So how does this solve > >anything? > > > While /bin/sh on FreeBSD always evaluates both X and Y in "if test X > -a Y", it does correctly skip Y when X is false in "if X && Y". So > as long as the OS check is first, we don't evaluate $EUID except on > Cygwin. > > However, the form that Michael Meeks checked in is much better, > since it avoids the subtlety in the ordering of the 2 tests, while > still using "test -a" like in the rest of the file.
Why don't we use `id -u` instead of $EUID? That would work even in the old form (with -a and -eq) and AFAIK it is portable :) D. _______________________________________________ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice