On 6/10/07, Dan Muresan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
Hi,
I've updated duggfs to address the compilation errors reported by Felix
and Mario. I have taken a different approach by no longer attempting to
get through SWIG. This loses some functionality, but I believe
it's the only workable solution.
Dan Muresan scripsit:
> I expected dot to look in the current directory by default, and to
> ignore the PATH.
Nope. Posix says:
# If file does not contain a slash, the shell shall use the search
# path specified by PATH to find the directory containing file. Unlike
# normal command
I looked a little further, and dash(1) says it supports dot.
Turns out you're right; however, it seems that "the dot" is somehow
affected by PATH considerations, so
. setup.sh
does not work, yet
. ./setup.sh
does work. Which is pretty strange; I expected dot to look in the
current directo
Dan Muresan scripsit:
> While I understand the spirit of POSIX advocacy, note that this thread
> is about a Linux file system. Also, care to share the concrete solution
> in this case? What's the POSIXly correct way to load a script in the
> current shell ("." or "source" in bash, neither of wh
Peter Bex scripsit:
> > No. I'm surprised you've never run across the "source" or "." commands,
> > they're fairly common. They execute execute scripts in the current shell
> > (as opposed to spawning a new shell process). They're essential when you
> > want a script to modify the environment o
On 6/10/07, Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I was able to install chicken form the zip file and compile most of it using
"cmake" and "2005 vc++ .NET version".
It compiled and generated and the "chicken-boot.exe" file.
I can create a "c" file from a simple "scm" file. However, when I try t
On Sun, Jun 10, 2007 at 03:54:50PM +0300, Dan Muresan wrote:
> > How about $(cat filename) or `cat filename`?
>
> No. I'm surprised you've never run across the "source" or "." commands,
> they're fairly common. They execute execute scripts in the current shell
> (as opposed to spawning a new she
On Sun, Jun 10, 2007 at 03:30:15PM +0300, Dan Muresan wrote:
While I understand the spirit of POSIX advocacy, note that this thread
is about a Linux file system. Also, care to share the concrete solution
in this case? What's the POSIXly correct way to load a script in the
current shell ("." or
On Sun, Jun 10, 2007 at 03:30:15PM +0300, Dan Muresan wrote:
> While I understand the spirit of POSIX advocacy, note that this thread
> is about a Linux file system. Also, care to share the concrete solution
> in this case? What's the POSIXly correct way to load a script in the
> current shell (
I was able to install chicken form the zip file and compile most of it using
"cmake" and "2005 vc++ .NET version".
It compiled and generated and the "chicken-boot.exe" file.
I can create a "c" file from a simple "scm" file. However, when I try to
generate a "c" program from the "chicken.scm" fi
Not really. It is in the Linux world, but outside that, there are lots of
Unices that don't come with Bash. In fact, one of the things that are most
annoying to Unix people who don't use Linux is the widespread hidden
assumption that /bin/sh points to bash. The fact that bash doesn't act
like a
On Sat, Jun 09, 2007 at 09:43:33PM -0700, Matthew Welland wrote:
> On Saturday 09 June 2007 08:29:40 pm Dan Muresan wrote:
> > > errno.i:
> > > ./gen_errno.sh >errno.i || $(RM) -f errno.i
> >
> > Another dash/bash problem on Debian or Ubuntu. I used the "source"
> > command to load a script
12 matches
Mail list logo
