Paul Eggert wrote:
Alex Hornby [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On a related note, does the restriction of not using shell functions in
autoconf macros still remain,
For Autoconf itself, we still avoid shell functions. But of course
you can use shell functions in your own macros, if you
On Wed, 19 Feb 2003, John W. Eaton wrote:
But now? Do we really have to worry about these old systems? If
people enjoy the vintage hardware, then is it that bad if they can
only use vintage software on it as well?
To install modern software on one of these vintage systems would be
like
On Wed, 19 Feb 2003, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
On Wed, 19 Feb 2003, John W. Eaton wrote:
But now? Do we really have to worry about these old systems? If
people enjoy the vintage hardware, then is it that bad if they can
only use vintage software on it as well?
To install modern software
Charles Wilson wrote:
I think the winning argument was as follows:
for archaic systems whose shell does not support shfuncs, 'somebody'
should create a snapshot of bash with a frozen autotool version
That's the argument that has been put forth over and over for years.
I couldn't
I guess it's time for me to chime in.
Dave Mills expect NTP to compile on anything he can get his hands on.
I've been lucky so far in that some of the older gear he has is breaking. I
do, however, still support SunOS4.1 and Ultrix.
And NTP will still use ansi2knr where needed.
I am also
Bruce Korb wrote:
Paul Eggert wrote:
Alex Hornby [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On a related note, does the restriction of not using shell functions in
autoconf macros still remain,
For Autoconf itself, we still avoid shell functions. But of course
you can use shell functions in your own
Harlan Stenn wrote:
I guess it's time for me to chime in.
Dave Mills expect NTP to compile on anything he can get his hands on.
That's very nice. Why does he need to do this? I mean, the
compelling reason?
I've been lucky so far in that some of the older gear he has is breaking. I
do,