Le 2011-06-15 à 19:07, Mike Meyer <m...@mired.org> a écrit : > On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 22:55:18 -0700 > Matt Welland <estifo...@gmail.com> wrote: >> I thought that from an end user perspective all that is needed with autoconf >> is sh. > > Not quite true. The problem is that, while every system has a /bin/sh, > different systems use different shells for that: most (but not all) > GNU/Linux systems use bash, the various BSD's use either things > derived from the original v7 sh, OSX switched from a BSD sh to bash at > some point, on SysV-based systems you can find Bourne shell, ksh or > pdksh variants, just to name the obvious ones. You can't even write > for a hypothetical "posix shell" because /bin/sh isn't posix compliant > on many systems. Which explains the (possibly apocryphal) Bourne > quote: "It's easier to write a shell than a portable shell script." > > The result is that the autotools config script searches (or searched - > I haven't looked into it in a year or so) the system and $PATH for the > "best" shell to use. This means whether or not the script actually > works properly depends on which shell it finds (if the "best" shell > has a bug that some test trips over), which means it can depend on > $PATH and which shells are installed on the system. > > In practice, it works fairly well because most systems have bash > installed (if only because GNU/Linux developers tend to write > bash-specific shell scripts, so a lot of software has a run-time > dependency on it) where the config script will find it, and the > autotools tests generally work around the bugs in it. > > <mike > -- > Mike Meyer <m...@mired.org>
So why not keep it how it is and write a Makefile.haiku, the actual Makefile work well in almost every other systems anyway... Even like this, it is easier to build fossil on haiku than on windows anyway... -- Martin _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
