[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: echo vs. printf regression (darwin8)

From: Eric Blake
Subject: Re: echo vs. printf regression (darwin8)
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 07:54:40 -0600
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv: Gecko/20100720 Fedora/3.1.1-1.fc13 Lightning/1.0b2pre Mnenhy/0.8.3 Thunderbird/3.1.1

On 08/16/2010 07:49 AM, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 08/15/2010 04:11 PM, Paul Eggert wrote:
>> On 08/15/10 21:26, David Fang wrote:
>>> I'm desperate enough to use sed to patch config.status after it's been
>>> generated:
>> If you're that desperate, you're desperate enough to use bash
>> instead of the broken Darwin shell, no?
>> To others:
>> Would it be appropriate to patch Autoconf to generate a 'configure'
>> that rejects that implementation of 'echo', if it discovers the bug?
> The bug is not in 'echo', but in the improper use of $(ECHO) within ``
> inside the Makefile.  Autoconf has no business inspecting whether
> Makefile.am has a use of $(ECHO) that might be broken due to libtool's
> change of how $(ECHO) is defined, and whether that change will cause
> breakage because $(ECHO) is being used incorrectly in the Makefile.
> I don't see how changing anything in autoconf could help in this situation.

That said, it may still be possible to patch libtool to define $ECHO in
such a way that will be more robust to use with `` in a Makefile.

Eric Blake   address@hidden    +1-801-349-2682
Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

reply via email to

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