On Jan 30, 2001, "Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> autoconf 2.49c (and the current CVS) fails if '.' is in PATH -
> it tries to execute the directory `./m4' when searching m4.
Yet another reason to not name the directory with m4 goodies `m4' :-(
I vote for renaming it.
--
On Wed, Jan 31, 2001 at 02:20:29AM -0200, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jan 30, 2001, "Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>
> > autoconf 2.49c (and the current CVS) fails if '.' is in PATH -
> > it tries to execute the directory `./m4' when searching m4.
I think the real problem
> "Alexandre" == Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> autoconf 2.49c (and the current CVS) fails if '.' is in PATH - it
>> tries to execute the directory `./m4' when searching m4.
Alexandre> Yet another reason to not name the directory with m4
Alexandre> goodies `m4' :-(
Alexandre
On Jan 31, 2001, Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ``How stupid configure is not
> to check that this executable is not a directory!''.
> I'd suggest to fix the second issue :)
Sure, it should be fixed. But you'll probably remember I have always
opposed the idea of having a directory
> "Alexandre" == Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I'd suggest to fix the second issue :)
Alexandre> Sure, it should be fixed. But you'll probably remember I
Alexandre> have always opposed the idea of having a directory named
Alexandre> m4.
OK :) I, myself, prefer ac/ :)
On Jan 31, 2001, Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> "Alexandre" == Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> I'd suggest to fix the second issue :)
Alexandre> Sure, it should be fixed. But you'll probably remember I
Alexandre> have always opposed the idea of having a director
> "Markus" == Markus F X J Oberhumer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Markus> After a look through the sources it seems that AS_EXECUTABLE_P
Markus> should use both "test -f" and "test -x" on systems that
Markus> support it, and "test -f" otherwise (DOS, Win, ...)
Good call, I was going to text !
> After a look through the sources it seems that
> AS_EXECUTABLE_P should use both "test -f" and
> "test -x" on systems that support it, and "test -f"
> otherwise (DOS, Win, ...)
Yes and no. The reason we try to use 'test -x' is so that
'test -x foo' will pick up foo.exe. I had not thought of
th
On Jan 31, 2001, Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> "Markus" == Markus F X J Oberhumer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Markus> After a look through the sources it seems that AS_EXECUTABLE_P
Markus> should use both "test -f" and "test -x" on systems that
Markus> support it, and "test -f"
> -Original Message-
> From: Alexandre Oliva [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2001 10:25 PM
> To: Akim Demaille
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: autoconf 2.49c fails if '.' is in PATH
>
>
> O
| On Jan 31, 2001, Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| >> "Markus" == Markus F X J Oberhumer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
|writes:
| Markus> After a look through the sources it seems that AS_EXECUTABLE_P
| Markus> should use both "test -f" and "test -x" on systems that
| Markus> support it, an
> "Tim" == Tim Van Holder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Tim> Yes and no. The reason we try to use 'test -x' is so that 'test
Tim> -x foo' will pick up foo.exe. I had not thought of this finding
Tim> directories (then again, I don't have . in my path). I agree this
Tim> is a serious problem; eve
Hello.
Akim Demaille wrote:
> Still, `-f' is definitely better where we can use it. The question
> is, `is test -x my-dir positive on DOS environments'? If so, then on
> this arg the second `test' can be just `:'.
test -x path returns 0 (true) for executables and directories. I tested
with DJG
Akim Demaille wrote:
>
> > "Tim" == Tim Van Holder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Tim> Yes and no. The reason we try to use 'test -x' is so that 'test
> Tim> -x foo' will pick up foo.exe. I had not thought of this finding
> Tim> directories (then again, I don't have . in my path). I agree t
Earnie Boyd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> There is a caveat to "would work". If I have executable foo.exe and
> directory foo then both tests returns false. Given this, I don't see
> anyway out of `((test -x foo.exe && test -f foo.exe) || (test -x foo &&
> test -f foo))'.
Hm, I have some hesit
> -Original Message-
> From: Akim Demaille [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, February 02, 2001 7:09 PM
> To: Earnie Boyd
> Cc: Tim Van Holder; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> Alexandre Oliva
> Subject: Re: autoconf 2.49c fails if '.' is in PATH
>
This is becoming way too confusing. I'd like to ask a single answer
from each person who feel s/he knows well the architecture concerned.
Don't try to answer for all the architectures, just yours. Try to
avoid as much as possible using $exeext, as we need to find the
compiler before trying to c
On Feb 3, 2001, Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The question is `is $FILE an executable in the common sense'.
I think the best thing to do is to just ignore the issue of whether
the found executable is a directory while testing -x or -f, and test
for -d later on, notifying the user a
First off, sorry for the delay in replying; I just set up a new PC and
there is still much migrating and configuring to do...
> But I never read explicitly your environment also has this problem.
> Has it, or has it not? Because we can
it has.
> Unix:
> test -x && test -f
>
> DOS says no to te
Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Feb 3, 2001, Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > The question is `is $FILE an executable in the common sense'.
>
> I think the best thing to do is to just ignore the issue of whether
> the found executable is a directory while testing
"Tim Van Holder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> First off, sorry for the delay in replying; I just set up a new PC and
> there is still much migrating and configuring to do...
>
> > But I never read explicitly your environment also has this problem.
> > Has it, or has it not? Because we can
> it
Akim Demaille wrote:
>
> Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Feb 3, 2001, Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > The question is `is $FILE an executable in the common sense'.
> >
> > I think the best thing to do is to just ignore the issue of whether
> > the found e
> On DJGPP, can't you find some other tool that would help? For
> instance, is perl necessarily installed? Can we use it?
No, it's not. And the DJGPP maintainers get very upset if you
try forcing users to have too many non-trivial packages
installed (and perl is certainly non-trivial).
I can't t
Well, it's all too messy, and because of this show stopper we are
delaying Autoconf 2.50 way too much.
My personal opinion is
back up to test -f
and period. Sorry for the exotic guys, but no answer seems to have
arose, and yet trying to address this issue screwed the last snapshot.
24 matches
Mail list logo
