Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2008 17:41:15 -0700 (PDT) From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Mikko_Ty=F6l=E4j=E4rvi?= <mbsd@pacbell.net> To: Mike Meyer <mwm-keyword-freebsdhackers2.e313df@mired.org> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Why doesn't autoconf like our /bin/sh? Message-ID: <20080309173523.D907@antec.home> In-Reply-To: <20080309194050.39bab925@bhuda.mired.org> References: <20080309152712.42752293@bhuda.mired.org> <47D46127.2030802@chuckr.org> <20080309194050.39bab925@bhuda.mired.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 9 Mar 2008, Mike Meyer wrote: [...] > So there are at *least* three things that could be considered broken, > in that changing them would fix the problem I encountered. > > 1) Our /bin/sh isn't classified as Definitely usable. > 2) zsh is Not usable. > 3) zsh is classified as Maybe usable. > > #1 could be fixed on our side, if we understood why it wasn't > usable. It could also be fixed by the autoconf folks. #2 has to be > fixed by the zsh folks. #3 has to be fixed by the autoconf folks. Zsh has a large number of configuration settings that can make it more or less sh(1)-compatible. I've been bitten by SH_WORD_SPLIT, which defaults to being incompatible, IIRC. Since zsh is my interactive shell of preference, I spent a few minutes trying to reproduce your problems, but failed. Perhaps there is something in your .z* config files that make things go awry? $.02, /Mikko
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20080309173523.D907>