Hi,
> can't figure out how to download the files without all that HTML junk.
The HTML view is for quick peeking. (I.e. Trac junk)
SVN resides on a different URL.
>From http://libburnia.pykix.org :
"
svn co http://libburnia-svn.pykix.org/libburn/trunk libburn_pykix
For building the libraries
"Thomas Schmitt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > I understand all about writing portable scripts with autoconf,
>
> Could you have a look into our autotools configuration ?
> The root directory can be inspected at
> http://libburnia.pykix.org/browser/libburn/trunk
>
> Can you spot the rea
"Thomas Schmitt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > > This shell silently ignores "for i in ; do something ; done".
> > But this does not make the code portable
>
> For portability i now apply sed to the generated
> ./configure.
>
> But as said, a functional port demands a hand-made
> syst
Hi,
> > This shell silently ignores "for i in ; do something ; done".
> But this does not make the code portable
For portability i now apply sed to the generated
./configure.
But as said, a functional port demands a hand-made
system adapter anyway.
I can hardly expect autotools to know abou
Hi,
> I understand all about writing portable scripts with autoconf,
Could you have a look into our autotools configuration ?
The root directory can be inspected at
http://libburnia.pykix.org/browser/libburn/trunk
Can you spot the reason why our configure gets that
empty loop list ?
A pointer
"Thomas Schmitt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> $ bash --version
> GNU bash, version 2.05b.0(1)-release (i586-suse-linux)
> Copyright (C) 2002 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
> $ uname -a
> Linux * 2.4.21-215-athlon #1 Tue Apr 27 00:53:38 UTC 2004 i686 athlon i386
> GNU/Linux
>
> This shel
Hi,
> Which version of bash is that? I can't reproduce that result at all.
The SuSE 6.x is offline. But the result from the
younger SuSE 7.2 from where i know the problem
with libburn-0.2 should be more interesting
anyway:
$ bash --version
GNU bash, version 2.05.0(1)-release (i386-suse-linu
On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 04:31:53PM +0200, Thomas Schmitt wrote:
> I got an antiquity online (some SuSE 6.x):
> $ uname -a
> Linux * 2.2.13 #1 Mon Nov 8 15:51:29 CET 1999 i686 unknown
> $ for i in ; do echo $i ; done
> bash: syntax error near unexpected token `;'
> $ for i in
> bash: syn
Greg Wooledge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 22, 2007 at 12:17:57PM +0200, Thomas Schmitt wrote:
> > I'll have to correct that via sed.
> >test -z 1 && for ac_header in dummy
> > should be a single line repair of
> >for ac_header in
>
> I don't understand this "repair". test -z
Hi,
me:
> >test -z 1 && for ac_header in dummy
Greg Wooledge:
> I don't understand this "repair". test -z 1 will always return "false",
> because "1" is not a zero-length string. So you might as well just comment
> out the "for ac_header in dummy" line altogether.
If i disable the "for" lin
On Sun, Apr 22, 2007 at 12:17:57PM +0200, Thomas Schmitt wrote:
> I'll have to correct that via sed.
>test -z 1 && for ac_header in dummy
> should be a single line repair of
>for ac_header in
I don't understand this "repair". test -z 1 will always return "false",
because "1" is not a zero
11 matches
Mail list logo
