On Sunday 15 July 2007 22:18, David Boyes wrote:
> > Regarding the 32/64 bit thing:
> >
> > maybe testing like this is a better way:
> >
> > if test "$(uname -m)" = "x86_64"; then
>
> It puts you into the business of exhaustively listing every possible
> perversion of system/arch ids. Not very m
On Sunday 15 July 2007 22:18, David Boyes wrote:
> > Regarding the 32/64 bit thing:
> >
> > maybe testing like this is a better way:
> >
> > if test "$(uname -m)" = "x86_64"; then
>
> It puts you into the business of exhaustively listing every possible
> perversion of system/arch ids. Not very m
> Regarding the 32/64 bit thing:
>
> maybe testing like this is a better way:
>
> if test "$(uname -m)" = "x86_64"; then
It puts you into the business of exhaustively listing every possible
perversion of system/arch ids. Not very maintainable/scalable for the
long term.
A simpler solution would
* Kern Sibbald schrieb am 14.07.07 um 21:17 Uhr:
> On Saturday 14 July 2007 16:52, Marc Schiffbauer wrote:
> > * Kern Sibbald schrieb am 14.07.07 um 15:35 Uhr:
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > I would appreciate it if you two would try the current SVN and see if it
> can
> > > find your installed qwt li
