On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 12:04:41AM -0400, John Baldwin wrote:
> On Sunday 25 May 2008 11:45:37 am Stefan Farfeleder wrote:
> > On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 09:06:47AM -0600, John E Hein wrote:
> > > FWIW, it seems bash and sh report line number differently.
> > >
> > > # grep -n ^ ~/tmp/ln
> > > 1:#!/bi
On Sunday 25 May 2008 11:45:37 am Stefan Farfeleder wrote:
> On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 09:06:47AM -0600, John E Hein wrote:
> > FWIW, it seems bash and sh report line number differently.
> >
> > # grep -n ^ ~/tmp/ln
> > 1:#!/bin/sh
> > 2:echo f line: $LINENO
> > 3:f()
> > 4:{
> > 5:echo f line: $LINE
Stefan Farfeleder wrote at 16:13 +0200 on May 16, 2008:
> On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 10:11:43AM -0400, Mike Meyer wrote:
> > On Fri, 16 May 2008 09:44:33 +0200
> > Stefan Farfeleder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > On Sun, Mar 09, 2008 at 03:27:12PM -0400, Mike Meyer wrote:
> > > > I've stu
Stefan Farfeleder wrote at 17:45 +0200 on May 25, 2008:
> On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 09:06:47AM -0600, John E Hein wrote:
> > FWIW, it seems bash and sh report line number differently.
> >
> > # grep -n ^ ~/tmp/ln
> > 1:#!/bin/sh
> > 2:echo f line: $LINENO
> > 3:f()
> > 4:{
> > 5:echo f line
On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 09:06:47AM -0600, John E Hein wrote:
> FWIW, it seems bash and sh report line number differently.
>
> # grep -n ^ ~/tmp/ln
> 1:#!/bin/sh
> 2:echo f line: $LINENO
> 3:f()
> 4:{
> 5:echo f line: $LINENO
> 6:}
> 7:
> 8:f
> 9:echo main line: $LINENO
> 10:f
>
>
> # /bin/sh ~/t
On Fri, 16 May 2008 16:13:07 +0200 Stefan Farfeleder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 10:11:43AM -0400, Mike Meyer wrote:
> > On Fri, 16 May 2008 09:44:33 +0200
> > Stefan Farfeleder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > On Sun, Mar 09, 2008 at 03:27:12PM -0400, Mike Meyer wrot
On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 10:11:43AM -0400, Mike Meyer wrote:
> On Fri, 16 May 2008 09:44:33 +0200
> Stefan Farfeleder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Mar 09, 2008 at 03:27:12PM -0400, Mike Meyer wrote:
> > > I've stumbled on to an obscure problem with autoconf 2.61, and I'm not
> > > sure
On Fri, 16 May 2008 09:44:33 +0200
Stefan Farfeleder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 09, 2008 at 03:27:12PM -0400, Mike Meyer wrote:
> > I've stumbled on to an obscure problem with autoconf 2.61, and I'm not
> > sure quite what to do with it. I've already sent mail to the autoconf
> > fol
On Sun, Mar 09, 2008 at 03:27:12PM -0400, Mike Meyer wrote:
> I've stumbled on to an obscure problem with autoconf 2.61, and I'm not
> sure quite what to do with it. I've already sent mail to the autoconf
> folks, but I'd like to understand what's going on.
>
> The problem is that, on a FreeBSD sy
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 07:08:20PM +1100, Peter Jeremy wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 09, 2008 at 03:27:12PM -0400, Mike Meyer wrote:
> >I've stumbled on to an obscure problem with autoconf 2.61, and I'm not
> >sure quite what to do with it. I've already sent mail to the autoconf
> >folks, but I'd like to un
On Sun, Mar 09, 2008 at 03:27:12PM -0400, Mike Meyer wrote:
>I've stumbled on to an obscure problem with autoconf 2.61, and I'm not
>sure quite what to do with it. I've already sent mail to the autoconf
>folks, but I'd like to understand what's going on.
Simplest explanation is that autotools are
On Sun, 9 Mar 2008 17:41:15 -0700 (PDT) Mikko Työläjärvi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Mar 2008, Mike Meyer wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > So there are at *least* three things that could be considered broken,
> > in that changing them would fix the problem I encountered.
> >
> > 1) Our /bin/sh
On Sun, 9 Mar 2008, Mike Meyer wrote:
[...]
So there are at *least* three things that could be considered broken,
in that changing them would fix the problem I encountered.
1) Our /bin/sh isn't classified as Definitely usable.
2) zsh is Not usable.
3) zsh is classified as Maybe usable.
#1 cou
On Sunday, 9 March 2008 at 15:27:12 -0400, Mike Meyer wrote:
> I've stumbled on to an obscure problem with autoconf 2.61, and I'm not
> sure quite what to do with it. I've already sent mail to the autoconf
> folks, but I'd like to understand what's going on.
>
> The problem is that, on a FreeBSD s
On Sun, Mar 09, 2008 at 07:40:50PM -0400, Mike Meyer wrote:
> 1) Our /bin/sh isn't classified as Definitely usable.
> 2) zsh is Not usable.
> 3) zsh is classified as Maybe usable.
The third is definitely true.
Joerg
___
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org maili
On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 18:13:59 -0400 Chuck Robey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Mike Meyer wrote:
> > I've stumbled on to an obscure problem with autoconf 2.61, and I'm not
> > sure quite what to do with it. I've already sent mail to the autoconf
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Mike Meyer wrote:
> I've stumbled on to an obscure problem with autoconf 2.61, and I'm not
> sure quite what to do with it. I've already sent mail to the autoconf
> folks, but I'd like to understand what's going on.
>
> The problem is that, on a FreeB
I've stumbled on to an obscure problem with autoconf 2.61, and I'm not
sure quite what to do with it. I've already sent mail to the autoconf
folks, but I'd like to understand what's going on.
The problem is that, on a FreeBSD system with only /bin/sh and the
ports zsh as installed shells, if you h
18 matches
Mail list logo
