* Nicolas Joly wrote on Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 01:27:25PM CEST: > On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 12:35:00PM +0200, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > * Nicolas Joly wrote on Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 12:10:47PM CEST: > > > > > > In the mean time, i tested the solution where `print -r' and `ksh' > > > tests are swapped (attached patch). It seems to go a little further > > > (no more `print' error messages), but seems to fail in another ksh > > > problem/bug :
[ which ends in a segmentation fault. ] > > Please rerun the libtool command line with --debug and post output, > > you may pack (gzip, bzip2). > > libtool.dbg.bz2 attached. OK, let's cut this testing a little short. It seems that Tru64 fails to provide any decent kind of shell for its users. I consider just putting a note about Tru64 into README (branch-1-5) resp. doc/notes.texi (HEAD). Proposal would be one of the following (whichever works and passes the test suite): | Note that Tru64 V5.1B ksh has some bugs which make it hardly useable for | libtoolized packages. Please set | BIN_SH=xpg4; export BIN_SH | in your environment for configuring and building. | Note that Tru64 V5.1B ksh has some bugs which make it hardly useable for | libtoolized packages. Please set | lt_ECHO='printf %s\\n'; export lt_ECHO | in your environment for configuring and building. (s/lt_ECHO/ECHO/g for branch-1-5). What do you think? Which one? Could one of the Tru64 users be bothered to send a bug report to HP? Regards, and thanks for all your testing, Ralf _______________________________________________ http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool