On Wed, 07.05.14 08:54, Emil Sjölin (emil.sjo...@axis.com) wrote: > This fix makes sure that the package installation will work > on systems using versions of 'GNU coreutils' older than 8.16. > > Please see tools/lnr.sh for limitations for this fix. > --- > configure.ac | 16 ++++++++++ > tools/lnr.sh | 93 > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 2 files changed, 109 insertions(+) > create mode 100755 tools/lnr.sh > > diff --git a/configure.ac b/configure.ac > index ead697b..399a52f 100644 > --- a/configure.ac > +++ b/configure.ac > @@ -315,6 +315,22 @@ fi > AM_CONDITIONAL(ENABLE_COVERAGE, [test "$have_coverage" = "yes"]) > > # > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > +ln_relative_support=yes > +AC_CHECK_PROG(ln_found, [ln], [yes], [no]) > +if test "x$ln_found" = xno ; then > + AC_MSG_ERROR([*** ln support requested but the program was not > found]) > +else > + ln_version_major="`ln --version | head -1 | cut -d ' ' -f 4 | cut -d > '.' -f 1`" > + ln_version_minor="`ln --version | head -1 | cut -d ' ' -f 4 | > cut -d '.' -f 2`"
Isn't "head -n 1" more correct? > + if test "$ln_version_major" -lt 8 || test "$ln_version_major" -eq 8 > -a "$ln_version_minor" -lt 16; then > + ln_relative_support=no > + fi > + if test "x$ln_relative_support" = "xno"; then > + LN_S=$(echo "$LN_S" | sed > s:"ln":""$srcdir"\/tools\/lnr.sh":) Shouldn't this be "sed -e"? > + fi > +fi Hmm, if we ship this anyway, why not always use it? Otherwise it would too easily bitrot... THis would also allow removing much of the shell pipeline in the configure script for this. I mean, these commands have changed all the time in the past, for example sed quite a bit... > + > +# > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > have_kmod=no > AC_ARG_ENABLE(kmod, AS_HELP_STRING([--disable-kmod], [disable loadable > modules support])) > if test "x$enable_kmod" != "xno"; then > diff --git a/tools/lnr.sh b/tools/lnr.sh > new file mode 100755 > index 0000000..74e1644 > --- /dev/null > +++ b/tools/lnr.sh > @@ -0,0 +1,93 @@ No shebang? > +# This script makes the 'ln --relative' command work as expected on a system > where the > +# 'relative' option of 'ln' is not supported. > +# > +# NOTE: > +# The script assumes that the 'relative' option of 'ln' is used with any > +# of the following syntaxes: > +# '--relative' > +# '-r' > +# > +# The script will NOT handle combined options e.g. '-rf', '-ir' etc. > +# The script will also only handle the 1st form of the 'ln' command (see man > page > +# for the 'ln' command for the different forms). > +# > + > + > +while [ $# -gt 2 ]; do > + string="$1" > + if [ "${string#-*}" != "$string" ]; then > + # argument is an option > + if [ "$string" = "$relop_1" ] || [ "$string" = > "$relop_2" ]; then Why not "-o" instead of "] || ["? I'd really prefer if somebody who's a true shell guru could look over this. Harald? (Or Zbigniew?) Lennart -- Lennart Poettering, Red Hat _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel