Harlan Stenn wrote:
>
> I guess it's time for me to chime in.
>
> Dave Mills expect NTP to compile on anything he can get his hands on.
That's very nice. Why does he need to do this? I mean, the
compelling reason?
> I've been lucky so far in that some of the older gear he has is breaking. I
Bruce Korb wrote:
Paul Eggert wrote:
Alex Hornby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
On a related note, does the restriction of not using shell functions in
autoconf macros still remain,
For Autoconf itself, we still avoid shell functions. But of course
you can use shell functions in your own macr
I guess it's time for me to chime in.
Dave Mills expect NTP to compile on anything he can get his hands on.
I've been lucky so far in that some of the older gear he has is breaking. I
do, however, still support SunOS4.1 and Ultrix.
And NTP will still use ansi2knr where needed.
I am also workin
Charles Wilson wrote:
> I think the "winning" argument was as follows:
>for archaic systems whose shell does not support shfuncs, 'somebody'
> should create a snapshot of bash with a frozen autotool version
That's the argument that has been put forth over and over for years.
I couldn't re
Eric Siegerman wrote:
> Hmmm, that brings up GCC. I know they have their own reasons for
> sticking with 2.13 (or had, last time I checked), but AC's
> dropping old-box support might be one more, given that GCC is
> seen as (among other things) a way to bootstrap the rest of GNU
> onto weird syst
On Wed, Feb 19, 2003 at 01:51:01PM -0800, Paul Eggert wrote:
> Eric Siegerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > [The "regression" test for shell-function support] first appeared in 2.55, in
>mid-November, 2002 (not
> > counting betas). How long would it be appropriate to keep
> > waiting for compla
Eric Siegerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The test suite checks whether they're supported. What has the
> feedback been like so far?
I haven't seen anybody complain.
> That test first appeared in 2.55, in mid-November, 2002 (not
> counting betas). How long would it be appropriate to keep
>
"John W. Eaton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> even Ultrix had another shell, /bin/sh5, if I remember correctly,
> that did support shell functions, and it would not have been too
> difficult for configure to attempt to find it
Recent versions of Autoconf generate "configure" scripts that do just
Chris Albertson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What do you mean "gone the way of SunOS 4.x"?
> I set up a DNS and mail server on a Sun SPARC IPX ages ago at a place I
> used to work at. The IPX has all of 32MB RAM and runs SunOS 4.x. On
> such a low powered machine (20Mhz SPARC, I think) SunOS i
On Wed, 19 Feb 2003, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Feb 2003, John W. Eaton wrote:
> >
> > But now? Do we really have to worry about these old systems? If
> > people enjoy the vintage hardware, then is it that bad if they can
> > only use vintage software on it as well?
>
> To install moder
On Wed, 19 Feb 2003, John W. Eaton wrote:
>
> But now? Do we really have to worry about these old systems? If
> people enjoy the vintage hardware, then is it that bad if they can
> only use vintage software on it as well?
To install modern software on one of these vintage systems would be
like p
On 19-Feb-2003, Bruce Korb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| Paul Eggert wrote:
| >
| > Personally I'm becoming more inclined to start using shell functions.
| > Perhaps in Autoconf 3.
|
| If my memory serves, GCC has finally said, "Enough with K&R already!"
| but everyone is still saying, "You first
[removing the automake list from the CC's]
On Wed, Feb 19, 2003 at 09:16:54AM -0800, Paul Eggert wrote:
> Personally I'm becoming more inclined to start using shell functions.
> Perhaps in Autoconf 3.
The test suite checks whether they're supported. What has the
feedback been like so far?
That
Paul Eggert wrote:
Alex Hornby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
On a related note, does the restriction of not using shell functions in
autoconf macros still remain,
For Autoconf itself, we still avoid shell functions. But of course
you can use shell functions in your own macros, if you don't ca
Paul Eggert wrote:
>
> Alex Hornby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On a related note, does the restriction of not using shell functions in
> > autoconf macros still remain,
>
> For Autoconf itself, we still avoid shell functions. But of course
> you can use shell functions in your own macros,
Alex Hornby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On a related note, does the restriction of not using shell functions in
> autoconf macros still remain,
For Autoconf itself, we still avoid shell functions. But of course
you can use shell functions in your own macros, if you don't care
about porting to
On Tue, 18 Feb 2003, Richard Dawe wrote:
> http://www.gnu.org/software/ac-archive/htmldoc/mp_with_curses.html
I saw that, but it doesn't solve the majority of problems you can have if
you try to use vendor-supplied curses libraries, outright broken ncurses
installations in funny places, color
> Paul Eggert wrote:
> > We did not purposely shut off SunOS 4.x. Instead, we wrote new code,
> > that is portable according to POSIX 1003.2-1992 (a 10-year-old
> > standard), which SunOS 4.x happens to break on, and for which there is
> > no simple workaround.
On a related note, does the restri
18 matches
Mail list logo
