Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 19:11:45 -0500 From: Garance A Drosihn <drosih@rpi.edu> To: Harlan Stenn <Harlan.Stenn@pfcs.com> Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Shells for you and shells for me Message-ID: <v04011704b25ab233a404@[128.113.24.47]> In-Reply-To: <9698.909437031@brown.pfcs.com> References: Garance A Drosihn's (drosih@rpi.edu) message dated Mon, 26 Oct 1998 16:07:00. <v04011703b25a8ff095ff@[128.113.24.47]>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 4:23 PM -0500 10/26/98, Harlan Stenn wrote:
> Is the actual fragments that are art of autoconf causing the
> problem, or is it in the configure.in that the package author
> has written?
Some general macros in autoconf, such as AC_PATH_PROGS,
can (with the right parameters) result in something like:
IFS=: (and some other things)
for ac_dir in $PATH:/other/path:/another/path ; do
if test -f $ac_dir/$ac_word ; then
...do stuff...
fi
done
IFS= (what it used to equal)
The problem is that IFS should effect what happens with the
expansion of $PATH, but it should not (apparently) effect the
rest of the line. The guy who put together this autoconf-ed
program in question believes that he was using autoconf 2.12.
It does look like 2.12 is trying to avoid this problem, and
code he ended up with *did* work on the all platforms that we
tried except for /bin/sh under FreeBSD. I must admit I don't
really know enough about autoconf to figure out how all the
various pieces of autoconf come together, though.
[not that this is critical to the original topic of this
thread, but I thought I'd supply a few more details...]
---
Garance Alistair Drosehn = gad@eclipse.its.rpi.edu
Senior Systems Programmer or drosih@rpi.edu
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?v04011704b25ab233a404>