On Jan 4, 2009, at 10:29 PM, der Mouse wrote: >> (! test -z "$LIBTOOLIZE") || { >> >> ...requires Bash, and blows up when run by the Bourne shell. > > It does not require bash. NetBSD's stock sh, for example, which is > definitely not bash - it appears to be based on ash - accepts it just > fine. (This is as of both NetBSD 1.4T and 4.0, probably meaning > everything in between too.)
Ahh, I stand corrected, it does not require Bash. However, it's still not a Bourne shell script, if it contains stuff that the Bourne shell does not recognize. > This is not to say that it's not better to avoid it, especially > given a > relatively common Unix variant (Solaris) that breaks on it. Yes. > Perhaps > > test -z "$LIBTOOLIZE" && { > > works better? I can't see any reason it would be semantically > different, unless there is further control structure following the > closing }. (I can't easily test it myself, as I have no machines > running Solaris.) I may have an opportunity to try it, if I can ever get myself dug out of Linux dependency hell. -Dave -- Dave McGuire Port Charlotte, FL _______________________________________________ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user