Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 15:08:59 +0100 From: Bernd Walter <ticso@cicely12.cicely.de> To: Peter Jeremy <peterjeremy@optushome.com.au> Cc: hackers@freebsd.org, Mike Meyer <mwm-keyword-freebsdhackers2.e313df@mired.org> Subject: Re: Why doesn't autoconf like our /bin/sh? Message-ID: <20080311140859.GB34311@cicely12.cicely.de> In-Reply-To: <20080311080820.GJ68971@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org> References: <20080309152712.42752293@bhuda.mired.org> <20080311080820.GJ68971@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 07:08:20PM +1100, Peter Jeremy wrote: > On Sun, Mar 09, 2008 at 03:27:12PM -0400, Mike Meyer wrote: > >I've stumbled on to an obscure problem with autoconf 2.61, and I'm not > >sure quite what to do with it. I've already sent mail to the autoconf > >folks, but I'd like to understand what's going on. > > Simplest explanation is that autotools are broken by design. After my > recent experiences, I've come to the conclusion that they are designed > to impede the portability of software. > > >My question is, why doesn't the configure script just accept /bin/sh? > > Probably because it's not bash. This is also the reason why I install bash if I had linux-bash in my path, because it will use linux-bash instead of sh and starts finding linux things which it shouldn't for native builds. The native bash is in path befor the linix version so it at least uses a native compiled shell. -- B.Walter http://www.bwct.de http://www.fizon.de bernd@bwct.de info@bwct.de support@fizon.de
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20080311140859.GB34311>