Mail Archives: djgpp/1998/10/23/06:50:09
bowman <bowman AT montana DOT com> wrote:
> I found that doing an explicit cd ../original_dir fixed the problem,
> and there were a few exchanges about this in the archives that indicated
> this was the case.
> I ran a small test using this hack with bash available, and pointed to
> by SHELL, and it still seemed to work.
> So, my question, is the explicit cd safe in all configurations, or will
> I get burnt?
Don't know about all systems, but on our unix (Sun) system, using bash
with -P (follow physical links, not symbolic) could(not?) create
problems.[1]
But if SHELL=/bin/sh I think there should be no problem.
bye now,
Robert.
[1] What I mean is, if you have a tree set up like:
/usr/package1
/usr/package2 -> /net/package2
you make in /usr/package1, this make says:
cd ../package2; make
cd ../package1
the cd ../package2 sets you to /net/package2, which means that cd
../package1 doesn't work (package1 is in /usr, not /net) but if make
returns to package1 by itself then the cd ../package1 can't hurt
either.
So bottom line is: I don't think there will be a problem with such an
approach (not even taking into acount the unlikeliness of the tree set
up and use of it described above)
--
rjvdboon AT cs DOT vu DOT nl | "En dat is niet waar!" sprak ex-Staatsecretaris-
www.cs.vu.nl/~rjvdboon | van-Onderwijs Netelenbos fel.
- Raw text -