Re: Potential bash 2.05 issues with 'set'

2001-10-23 Thread Akim Demaille
Tim == Tim Van Holder [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Tim Something like this, perhaps? For sure! ___ Libtool mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool

Re: Potential bash 2.05 issues with 'set'

2001-10-23 Thread Tim Van Holder
Tim == Tim Van Holder [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Tim Something like this, perhaps? For sure! OK - installed (this may be resolved in bash 2.06; if so, I'll try to remember to amend this entry accordingly). ___ Libtool mailing list [EMAIL

Re: Potential bash 2.05 issues with 'set'

2001-09-21 Thread Paul Eggert
From: Tim Van Holder [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2001 18:44:43 +0200 bash's behaviour with regards to the 'set' builtin has changed in 2.05 This apparently lead to a broken config.cache when using bash 2.05 ! ac_cv_path_install=${ac_cv_path_install='ginstall -c'} ---

Potential bash 2.05 issues with 'set'

2001-09-21 Thread Tim Van Holder
I asked about this a whil ago, but since I didn't receive any comments, I'm asking again. bash's behaviour with regards to the 'set' builtin has changed in 2.05: 3. New Features in Bash b. When `set' is called without options, it prints function defintions in a way that allows them