> From: Jim Meyering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 19 Mar 2001 10:52:15 +0100 > > I'm beginning to think that Ultrix's /bin/sh is so bad that polluting, > er... changing autoconf to accommodate is may not be worthwhile. > Do any of you have an idea of how big the Ultrix-using community is? I don't really know, but I'd guess less than a thousand sysadmins total, and of those maybe a few dozen sysadmins use autoconf-derived scripts. Sorry, I lost context. Why can't we ask people to invoke 'CONFIG_SHELL=/bin/sh5 /bin/sh5 configure' on Ultrix? If there's only a few dozen users, we can just inform them of this by hand.
- autoconf test ': >emtpy' problem under Ultrix Harlan Stenn
- Re: autoconf test ': >emtpy' problem under Ultrix Akim Demaille
- Re: autoconf test ': >emtpy' problem under Ultrix Jim Meyering
- Re: autoconf test ': >emtpy' problem under Ultrix Akim Demaille
- Re: autoconf test ': >emtpy' problem under Ultrix Jim Meyering
- Re: autoconf test ': >emtpy' problem under Ult... Akim Demaille
- RE: autoconf test ': >emtpy' problem under Ult... Tim Van Holder
- Re: autoconf test ': >emtpy' problem under Ultrix Paul Eggert
- Re: autoconf test ': >emtpy' problem under Ult... Akim Demaille
- Re: autoconf test ': >emtpy' problem under Ult... Harlan Stenn
- Re: autoconf test ': >emtpy' problem under Ultrix Nicolas Joly
- Re: autoconf test ': >emtpy' problem under Ult... Akim Demaille
- Re: autoconf test ': >emtpy' problem under Ultrix Eric Siegerman
- Re: autoconf test ': >emtpy' problem under Ultrix Alexandre Oliva
- Re: autoconf test ': >emtpy' problem under Ultrix Akim Demaille
- Re: autoconf test ': >emtpy' problem under Ultrix Alexandre Oliva
- Re: autoconf test ': >emtpy' problem under Ult... Akim Demaille