Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 19:08:20 +1100 From: Peter Jeremy <peterjeremy@optushome.com.au> To: Mike Meyer <mwm-keyword-freebsdhackers2.e313df@mired.org> Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Why doesn't autoconf like our /bin/sh? Message-ID: <20080311080820.GJ68971@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org> In-Reply-To: <20080309152712.42752293@bhuda.mired.org> References: <20080309152712.42752293@bhuda.mired.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--uCozLMBrA/OCc/kF Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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. --=20 Peter Jeremy Please excuse any delays as the result of my ISP's inability to implement an MTA that is either RFC2821-compliant or matches their claimed behaviour. --uCozLMBrA/OCc/kF Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.8 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAkfWPfQACgkQ/opHv/APuIcAqACgjfUB0c7UWTHchdckt/PtvqUy ah8AoLBAmbwOteczzCzQh6DvF3zQl24/ =uhJk -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --uCozLMBrA/OCc/kF--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20080311080820.GJ68971>