My "fear" is that autoconf has introduced this "catch-all" as I have been running into it more frequently of late (first time was last November when I took my first attempt at packaging gcc.)
I shall look at the patch and let you know - however, regardless of whether it works or not - is this something that autoconf is introducing, read changed - requiring you to make a patch. If so, while from autoconf perspective all may be well - it is not very user-friendly. (I just do not understand autoconf well enough to make that distinction). Thanks for looking! and listening!! On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 9:34 PM, Eric Blake <ebl...@redhat.com> wrote: > [adding autoconf] > > On 06/04/2015 01:17 PM, Paul Eggert wrote: > > > > On 06/04/2015 09:41 AM, Michael Felt wrote: > >> GEN src/coreutils.h > >> /bin/sh: 0403-057 Syntax error at line 1 : `;' is not expected. > > > > > Port to POSIX shell, which doesn't allow 'for i in ; do ...'. > > Actually, POSIX _does_ allow for missing words between 'in' and the > terminator (; or newline) before 'do' (whether by a word that expands to > nothing, or by omission of words), requiring that the body of the for > statement is skipped in that case: > > > http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/V3_chap02.html#tag_18_09_04 > > But it is also true that older shells did not always follow this rule, > so you are indeed better off always supplying at least one word that > won't be expanded into nothingness. > > Hmmm, I thought that autoconf would document it as a portability > pitfall, but I don't see it under 'for' in this link: > > > https://www.gnu.org/software/autoconf/manual/autoconf.html#Limitations-of-Builtins > > -- > Eric Blake eblake redhat com +1-919-301-3266 > Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org > >