Hello,
On Wed, Oct 11, 2006 at 02:52:13PM -0700, Paul Eggert wrote:
OK, but we should still have a macro that expands to plain test -x,
since sometimes it is useful to test whether the installer has the
x permission on a file or directory or whatever.
I installed this patch instead; it
Stepan Kasal [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
2) On ancient systems, the old `test -f' was ``good enough''
approximation,
But I thought the whole problem was that people were putting
directories named 'perl' in their path.
To some extent you're right, it's not a big deal. It just really
bugged me
Stepan Kasal [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
To sum up: I suggest to accept 1), 2) and reject 3), 4).
Since 1) and 2) are not controversial I installed them.
I'll address 3) and 4) later.
I also installed this NEWS item:
--- NEWS26 Sep 2006 20:43:00 - 1.402
+++ NEWS11 Oct
Stepan Kasal [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
3) AS_EXECUTABLE_P is reduced to `test -x' (on modern hosts).
(See the attached autoconf-20061009-bin-sh-3.patch.)
IIRC, the current implementation of AS_EXECUTABLE_P is a result of a
long discussion. In particular, mere `test -x' was refused because
Stepan Kasal [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
4) Use AS_EXECUTABLE_P in _AS_DETECT_BETTER_SHELL.
(See autoconf-20061009-bin-sh-4.patch, also attached.)
This depends on 3) and introduces problems reported by Ralf.
I don't recall what those problems were. I guess some circularity
issues? Anyway,
Hello,
On Fri, Oct 06, 2006 at 05:49:04PM +0200, Stepan Kasal wrote:
I will break the patch into the ``individual parts'' and add my
comments tomorrow.
I apologize I'm late. Paul's patch contained 4 changes:
1) Do not play with /usr/bin/posix nor BIN_SH.
This was the main part of the patch;
Underwood, Tonya [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
./configure[2236]: /var/tmp/sh10423.126: Cannot create the specified file.
OK, thanks, I think I may have figured it out: you're using
/usr/posix/bin/sh and it's buggy.
I have installed the following patch to GNU Autoconf to try to squash
this one.
