Can you try this one out?
With some magic (sed and brace expansion) we might be able to use
AM_CPPFLAGS for PCH_FLAGS.
All-in-all the result is nicer than what we have now, but the
implementaion is a bit hairy.
Index: common.am
===
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lars Gullik Bjønnes) writes:
| Can you try this one out?
>
| With some magic (sed and brace expansion) we might be able to use
| AM_CPPFLAGS for PCH_FLAGS.
>
| All-in-all the result is nicer than what we have now, but the
| implementaion is a bit hairy.
I went ahead an committe
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> Can you try this one out?
>
> With some magic (sed and brace expansion) we might be able to use
> AM_CPPFLAGS for PCH_FLAGS.
>
> All-in-all the result is nicer than what we have now, but the
> implementaion is a bit hairy.
I see that you've committed this already. I'
Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Some comments:
| Index: common.am
| +$(PCH_FILE): $(PCH_SOURCE)
| # Ok, here you need to escape the regexes with backslashes
| # because the sed expression is not inside single quotes.
| # The backslashes prevent the shell from messing up.
| + TMPCMD=
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> | In your other mail you say
> | I am not sure that the brace expansion stuff
> | is really portable. (I am sure angus can help me
> | with that :-) )
>>
> | What are you talking about? I see no braces...
>
> One line below...:
>
> $${TMPCMD/$$PATTERN}
>
> I am no
Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
>> | In your other mail you say
>> | I am not sure that the brace expansion stuff
>> | is really portable. (I am sure angus can help me
>> | with that :-) )
>>>
>> | What are you talking about? I see no braces...
>>
>> One
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
>>> | In your other mail you say
>>> | I am not sure that the brace expansion stuff
>>> | is really portable. (I am sure angus can help me
>>> | with that :-) )
>>> | What are you talki
Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
>
>> Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> | Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
| In your other mail you say
| I am not sure that the brace expansion stuff
| is really portable. (I am sure angus can help me
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> Can you try this one out?
>
> With some magic (sed and brace expansion) we might be able to use
> AM_CPPFLAGS for PCH_FLAGS.
>
> All-in-all the result is nicer than what we have now, but the
> implementaion is a bit hairy.
Here's a one line patch that's still needed
Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
>
>> Can you try this one out?
>>
>> With some magic (sed and brace expansion) we might be able to use
>> AM_CPPFLAGS for PCH_FLAGS.
>>
>> All-in-all the result is nicer than what we have now, but the
>> implementaion is a bi
On Sun, Dec 05, 2004 at 04:32:36PM +, Angus Leeming wrote:
> ksh: ${FOO${BAR}}: bad substitution
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:aleem-> sh
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:aleem-> BAR=bar
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:aleem-> FOObar=w
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:aleem-> echo ${FOO${BAR}}
> bad substitution
>
> Sorry. You're out of
Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Sun, Dec 05, 2004 at 04:32:36PM +, Angus Leeming wrote:
>> ksh: ${FOO${BAR}}: bad substitution
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:aleem-> sh
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:aleem-> BAR=bar
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:aleem-> FOObar=w
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:aleem-> echo ${FOO${
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
>>> Sorry. You're out of look. Not portable to Tru64 unix.
>>
> | Is it possible to install bash on all systems we support?
>>
> | If so, wouldn't it be simpler to require a working 'bash'
> | and drop all these 'portability hacks'?
>
> Depends... remember that even on L
Lars Gullik BjÃnnes wrote:
Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Sun, Dec 05, 2004 at 04:32:36PM +, Angus Leeming wrote:
ksh: ${FOO${BAR}}: bad substitution
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:aleem-> sh
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:aleem-> BAR=bar
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:aleem-> FOObar=w
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:aleem-
Helge Hafting wrote:
>>I am ambivalent. Since _I_ use bash all the time: no problem for me.
>>But there are a lot of systems where bash is not the system/preffered
>>shell.
>>
>>
> Preference is not a problem. It is a problem only if bash is
> hard to get for the system in question.
W
Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Helge Hafting wrote:
>
>>>I am ambivalent. Since _I_ use bash all the time: no problem for me.
>>>But there are a lot of systems where bash is not the system/preffered
>>>shell.
>>>
>>>
>> Preference is not a problem. It is a problem only if bash
On Mon, Dec 06, 2004 at 09:19:52AM +, Angus Leeming wrote:
> Such a requirement will just lead to fewer people on these platforms
> overcoming the hurdle of using the thing. I thought we were interested in
> users. At least a little?
We certainly are interested in users. But users are surprisi
On Mon, Dec 06, 2004 at 10:08:08AM +0100, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> | Is it possible to install bash on all systems we support?
> >
> | If so, wouldn't it be simpler to require a working 'bash'
> | and drop all these 'portability hacks'?
>
> Depends... remember that even on Linux not everyone u
On Mon, Dec 06, 2004 at 12:27:40PM +, Angus Leeming wrote:
> What functionality do we need of bash that the POSIX-standard Bourne shell
> does not provide? I suspect that we need nothing that we can't get using
> perfectly standard means.
Certainly. However, there are some cases where the so
Andre Poenitz wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 06, 2004 at 12:27:40PM +, Angus Leeming wrote:
>> What functionality do we need of bash that the POSIX-standard Bourne
>> shell does not provide? I suspect that we need nothing that we can't get
>> using perfectly standard means.
>
> Certainly. However, ther
20 matches
Mail list logo
