[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: 1.8 and mkdir_p
From: |
Bob Proulx |
Subject: |
Re: 1.8 and mkdir_p |
Date: |
Wed, 14 Jan 2004 21:33:01 -0700 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.3.28i |
Harlan Stenn wrote:
> > > I think you are missing my point.
> > > The information I am talking about is used for *runtime* decisions - very
> > > likely in a script that is in a shared directory used by many different
> > > architectures.
If for use at runtime then config.guess is very poorly suited. Do you
really want to run the compiler at every run? It is a little slow.
On some systems it runs the assembler.
> > Oh, well, config.guess isn't designed for that -- it's for compile time
> > decisions.
In relation to my above comment, clearly for compile time decisions
running the compiler makes a lot of sense.
> You are clearly joking! I am not saying that I want to run config.guess as
> part of every shell RC file. I am saying the information that *should* be
> returned by config.guess (in its original spec) are sometimes needed for
> runtime decisions in a variety of places.
Uh, how does a runtime program obtain the "information that *should*
be returned by config.guess" without actually running config.guess?
> > uname -s, test -x /bin/rpm, test -x /bin/dpkg
> > are probably what you're after.
>
> Not at all.
I have a heterogeneous environment and I use runtime tests such as
'test -f /some/file' often. I also use 'somecommand --someoption' and
check the return code often. It works very well. This style of
coding is a single source style which works on different operating
systems without resorting to trying to enumerate all possible
configurations of them.
> I am talking about problems that you apparently have never had to really
> solve.
Hmm... I have a large number (is >2000 machines of different types
large?) of machines in my lab. I am willing to guess that I have had
to deal with many of the problems which you are about to propose as
examples which cannot be solved without using a lookup table. Perhaps
I or others can suggest working alternatives to doing a table lookup
for your problems as well?
But this is clearly getting offtopic for automake. This would be more
appropriate for the infrastructures[1] mailing list.
Bob
[1] http://mailman.terraluna.org/pipermail/infrastructures/
- Re: config.guess and freedom (was: 1.8 and mkdir_p), (continued)
- Re: 1.8 and mkdir_p, Scott James Remnant, 2004/01/08
- Re: 1.8 and mkdir_p, Harlan Stenn, 2004/01/13
- Re: 1.8 and mkdir_p, Bruno Haible, 2004/01/13
- Re: 1.8 and mkdir_p, Harlan Stenn, 2004/01/13
- Re: 1.8 and mkdir_p, Scott James Remnant, 2004/01/13
- Re: 1.8 and mkdir_p, Harlan Stenn, 2004/01/13
- Re: 1.8 and mkdir_p,
Bob Proulx <=
- Re: 1.8 and mkdir_p, Bob Friesenhahn, 2004/01/13
- Re: 1.8 and mkdir_p, Bruno Haible, 2004/01/14
- Re: 1.8 and mkdir_p, Harlan Stenn, 2004/01/14
- Re: 1.8 and mkdir_p, Bruno Haible, 2004/01/14
- Re: 1.8 and mkdir_p, Harlan Stenn, 2004/01/14
Re: 1.8 and mkdir_p, Harlan Stenn, 2004/01/07