On Thu, Oct 04, 2001 at 11:52:03AM -0700, Paul Eggert wrote:
From: Mike Castle [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I didn't realize that DOS and NT were considered UNIX-like systems.
[deleted]
My understanding is that bare DOS is not UNIX-like, but it gets
reasonably UNIX-like if you add enough 3rd-party
From: Mike Castle [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 12:40:50 -0700
Does that mean that autoconf should limit itself to
the POSIX portable file name character set?
Of course. If Autoconf uses non-POSIX file names (other than as part
of a test for file name portability, or after such
From: Mike Castle [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 12:40:50 -0700
My understanding is that bare DOS is not UNIX-like, but it gets
reasonably UNIX-like if you add enough 3rd-party software. Similarly
for NT.
And so can EBCDIC based systems.
I'm not opposed to using Autoconf
Paul Eggert wrote:
From: Mike Castle [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 12:40:50 -0700
Does that mean that autoconf should limit itself to
the POSIX portable file name character set?
Of course. If Autoconf uses non-POSIX file names (other than as part
of a test for file name
