[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [shell functions, was RE: solving of name conflicts in included .a]

From: Bruce Korb
Subject: Re: [shell functions, was RE: solving of name conflicts in included .a]
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 10:30:26 -0800

"Boehne, Robert" wrote:
>    Part 1.1Type: Plain Text (text/plain)

> Jan,
> That actually brings up a big issue.  I *assumed* that the win32 patches
> using shell functions that were checked in would only have shell functions
> when running under windows.  I later saw this was not the case.  There has
> been a large amount of debate over this in the Autoconf list, which I do
> not care to repeat here.  There are systems that do not have shell functions
> in their bourne shells, this is a known fact.  The decision to support them
> was made a long time ago, and as time progresses it seems to make less sense
> to support aging systems like this.  However, I do not want Libtool to get
> out of sync with Autoconf, suddenly not running on systems where Autoconf
> does run.

So, we wind up squandering horrendous amounts of package space,
download bandwidth and configure time because neither Autoconf
nor Libtool want to be the first to say that 20 year old shells
are too old for continued support.  Ick.  How completely disgusting.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]