|Subject:||Re: [shell functions, was RE: solving of name conflicts in included.a]|
|Date:||Thu, 14 Nov 2002 14:18:35 -0500|
|User-agent:||Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011019 Netscape6/6.2|
Let them install BASH and get out of our way. Both of them.Bash uses configure.
And so does ash :-( which was my first thought for working around this problem. On the other hand, is it so terrible to ask that those who wish to continue using systems with 20-year-old shells build bash/ash on a modern system using a cross-compiler?
One massive painful thing -- for "both" of those users, as Bruce puts it -- and then they have a modern shell on their ancient machine, and then these "two" users will be able to continue using modern autoconf/libtool tools. (assuming "modern" versions start using shell functions).
As far as "who did it first" -- does it really matter? This isn't about finger pointing, it's about solving problems. Right now, one of the problems is the gigantic size and slow runtime of configure. Both problems will be helped to a certain degree (unknown how much) by the use of shell functions. And some problems -- like the one addressed by win32_libid -- can be solved (cleanly) by shell functions, or very badly by the use of additional shell scripts and/or HERE documents. Blech.
|[Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread]|