On Sep 1, 2009, at 3:07 PM, Martin Costabel wrote:
> Ben Abbott wrote:
> []
>> On Snow Leopard ...
>> sh-3.2$ env COMMAND_MODE=unix2003 sh -c 'echo -n asdf'
>> -n asdf
>> sh-3.2$ env COMMAND_MODE=legacy sh -c 'echo -n asdf'
>> asdfsh-3.2$
>
> OK, so this is still the same as on Leopard. What has
Ben Abbott wrote:
[]
> On Snow Leopard ...
>
> sh-3.2$ env COMMAND_MODE=unix2003 sh -c 'echo -n asdf'
> -n asdf
> sh-3.2$ env COMMAND_MODE=legacy sh -c 'echo -n asdf'
> asdfsh-3.2$
OK, so this is still the same as on Leopard. What has changed is the
behavior of TeXShop, it seems to me. It doesn
On Tuesday, September 01, 2009, at 10:29AM, "Martin Costabel"
wrote:
>Mark J. Reed wrote:
>> OK, that confirms that what Martin said is true of Snow Leopard, which
>> I don't think was in question. But he said it had been true since
>> Leopard, and that's the part that I think is in error. If i
On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 10:29 AM, Martin Costabel wrote:
> I don't know how you do this, but it's not what I get on Leopard. Are you
> sure you aren't running Tiger?
Yes, it's Leopard. Specifically, as I said in my earlier message, 10.5.8.
> Or do you set or unset the environment variable COMMAND
Mark J. Reed wrote:
> OK, that confirms that what Martin said is true of Snow Leopard, which
> I don't think was in question. But he said it had been true since
> Leopard, and that's the part that I think is in error. If it wasn't
> changed until SL, that would also explain why the current proble
Mark J. Reed wrote:
> OK, that confirms that what Martin said is true of Snow Leopard, which
> I don't think was in question. But he said it had been true since
> Leopard, and that's the part that I think is in error. If it wasn't
> changed until SL, that would also explain why the current proble
OK, that confirms that what Martin said is true of Snow Leopard, which
I don't think was in question. But he said it had been true since
Leopard, and that's the part that I think is in error. If it wasn't
changed until SL, that would also explain why the current problem
didn't show up until SL.
On Sep 1, 2009, at 5:15 AM, Mark J. Reed wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 2:05 AM, Martin Costabel
> wrote:
>> Mark J. Reed wrote:
>>> OK, now I'm confused. On my Leopard box (10.5.8), /bin/sh is a link
>>> to bash - hm, a separate copy, actually - and behaves just like
>>> bash
>>> does in
On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 2:05 AM, Martin Costabel wrote:
> Mark J. Reed wrote:
>> OK, now I'm confused. On my Leopard box (10.5.8), /bin/sh is a link
>> to bash - hm, a separate copy, actually - and behaves just like bash
>> does in 'sh mode' on other platforms, including honoring -n in echo.
>
>
Ben Abbott wrote:
> On Aug 31, 2009, at 9:02 PM, Mark J. Reed wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 7:46 PM, Martin
>> Costabel wrote:
>>> Otherwise use printf or /bin/echo -n instead of echo -n. Or bash
>>> instead of
>>> sh.
>> OK, now I'm confused. On my Leopard box (10.5.8), /bin/sh is a li
Mark J. Reed wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 7:46 PM, Martin Costabel wrote:
>> Otherwise use printf or /bin/echo -n instead of echo -n. Or bash instead of
>> sh.
>
> OK, now I'm confused. On my Leopard box (10.5.8), /bin/sh is a link
> to bash - hm, a separate copy, actually - and behaves jus
On Aug 31, 2009, at 9:02 PM, Mark J. Reed wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 7:46 PM, Martin
> Costabel wrote:
>> Otherwise use printf or /bin/echo -n instead of echo -n. Or bash
>> instead of
>> sh.
>
> OK, now I'm confused. On my Leopard box (10.5.8), /bin/sh is a link
> to bash - hm, a sepa
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 7:46 PM, Martin Costabel wrote:
> Otherwise use printf or /bin/echo -n instead of echo -n. Or bash instead of
> sh.
OK, now I'm confused. On my Leopard box (10.5.8), /bin/sh is a link
to bash - hm, a separate copy, actually - and behaves just like bash
does in 'sh mode'
On Aug 31, 2009, at 7:46 PM, Martin Costabel wrote:
> Mark J. Reed wrote:
>> "More POSIX conforming than POSIX requires" would seem to be an
>> oxymoron, if not a paradox. And POSIX explicitly allows "echo -n".
>
> Yes, that's what I mean. Back in the early days of Leopard, when
> people compla
Mark J. Reed wrote:
> "More POSIX conforming than POSIX requires" would seem to be an
> oxymoron, if not a paradox. And POSIX explicitly allows "echo -n".
Yes, that's what I mean. Back in the early days of Leopard, when people
complained about the missing -n in sh's echo, Apple said it is becaus
On 8/31/09, Martin Costabel wrote:
> Ben Abbott wrote:
>> I followed the instructions to switch to snow leopard. I've deleted
> []
>> Default Command: Latex
>> Default Script: Tex + DVI
>> Tex: altpdflatex
>> Latex: altpdflatex
>
> Contemporary versions of tex use simpdftex instead of altpdftex,
"More POSIX conforming than POSIX requires" would seem to be an
oxymoron, if not a paradox. And POSIX explicitly allows "echo -n".
Does the builtin echo in sh have any way to suppress a newline? Maybe
the venerable "\c"?
On 8/31/09, Martin Costabel wrote:
> Ben Abbott wrote:
>> I followed the
Ben Abbott wrote:
> I followed the instructions to switch to snow leopard. I've deleted
[]
> Default Command: Latex
> Default Script: Tex + DVI
> Tex: altpdflatex
> Latex: altpdflatex
Contemporary versions of tex use simpdftex instead of altpdftex, whose
development stopped ca 2002.
> When I t
I followed the instructions to switch to snow leopard. I've deleted
all Fink's .la files and have rebuilt the packages when the missing
files were needed when running an update-all. All went rather well.
Now I'm having trouble with tetex.
With the simple latex document ...
> \documentclass[1
19 matches
Mail list logo
