[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: AC_PATH_PROG requires target be executable

From: Ralf Wildenhues
Subject: Re: AC_PATH_PROG requires target be executable
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 19:12:00 +0100
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-13)


* Paul Eggert wrote on Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 06:47:07PM CET:
> Stepan Kasal <address@hidden> writes:
> > Should AC_PATH_FILE be added to Autoconf?
> I'm fine either way.  It is tempting to remove the executable-bit test
> entirely, though.

FWIW, I'd be for AC_PATH_FILE (which would be the brother of
AC_CHECK_FILE, and just as useless in cross compiling situations), or
just not providing any macro.  This particular use case seems so special
that a
  test -f /usr/sbin/bosboot

should give the right answer.  And if I can't execute it without
changing privileges, I can't assume my $PATH has any resemblance to 
the one the privileged person has.  This seems to go far away from
the "test just like you would use it later" mantra.

If we remove the executable-bit test, I bet we can hold our breath for
somebody who has a non-executable $HOME/bin/foo in his $PATH.

FWIW2, the other report that was cited in this thread (finding a library
with AC_*_PROG) was really an abuse of the macro; AC_CHECK_LIB and
others exist.

My humble 2 cents.


reply via email to

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