>>>>> "Paul" == Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> From: Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: 04 Oct 2001 17:31:18
>> +0200
>> First let's find a portable LINENO, *then* move to another shell.
Paul> But the attempt to find a portable LINENO is not cost-free.
Paul> It is broken now, and it will take time to fix it, and this is
Paul> time that will be almost entirely wasted in practice once we
Paul> execute configure with a portable shell.
So am I understanding that LINENO is a POSIX feature?
The current implementation in CVS Autoconf might be broken, but
really, I fail to understand what makes you fear the LINENO stuff that
much. Why do you say it is broken? What is the *current* problem?
Raja says it works fine on Solaris 8. I'm referring to CVS Autoconf,
of course.
Paul> These days, almost nobody runs on systems that lack portable
Paul> shells. I wouldn't spend a lot of time worrying about these
Paul> rare, ancient systems, particularly as the LINENO feature is not
Paul> essential for proper operation of "configure".
I definitely agree!!! That's exactly what I'm doing! I'm moving at
getting more and more new shell features into Autoconf, but I can't
see that LINENO stuff being that bad.
If you do think we should drop it, and I'm not strictly against that
decision, but very reluctant, then I would really like to have the
opinion of the comaintainers.
People, the question is:
If we look for a reasonable shell and re-exec configure once
we found one, are you OK with keeping $LINENO used in
configure, even if the shell does not treat $LINENO specially?
*And*, keep in mind the decision involves M4sh too (i.e., Autotest
scripts, M4sh-AdHoC scripts and so on).
