Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
>
>> Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> | My copy of 'unix in a nutshell' tells me that 'test -a' is
>> | specific to ksh, so this is going to break on systems where "sh
>> | means sh, not bash".
>>
>> So I can use "-e" instead?
>
| Not if you want plain old 'sh' to understand you.
Does old 'sh' has a test built-in?
>
| Both these seem to work:
| # your_symbolic_link exists and is a regular file
| test -f your_symbolic_link && ...
>
| # your symbolic_link exists and is readable
| test -r your_symbolic_link && ...
-r has nothing in particular to do with symbolic links has it?
>
| I guess the '-r' version has the semantics you're looking for.
seems so from "man test" as well.
>> | So, my guess is that you have builddir != srcdir and the creation
>> | of the symbolic link has failed.
>>>
>> | Incidentally, why use both $(<F) and `basename $<`. They;re
>> | equivalent, aren't they?
>>
>> Could be that I learned abougt $(<F) after I had written the line
>> below...
>
| Sorry, I didn't mean to be rude. I've only just learned about $(<F)
| myself, having pulled 'unix in a nutshell' in an attempt to
| understand your code.
Hmm... did I sound rudeed, not intentional.
(As in "Are you rud(e)ing me?" aka. "Are you being rude to me?")
--
Lgb
