delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi | search |
Date: | Sun, 18 Feb 2001 13:03:28 +0200 (IST) |
From: | Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il> |
X-Sender: | eliz AT is |
To: | Tim Van Holder <tim DOT van DOT holder AT pandora DOT be> |
cc: | djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com |
Subject: | Re: What versions of bash should the next autoconf support? |
In-Reply-To: | <CAEGKOHJKAAFPKOCLHDIOEKMCAAA.tim.van.holder@pandora.be> |
Message-ID: | <Pine.SUN.3.91.1010218130301.6713B-100000@is> |
MIME-Version: | 1.0 |
Reply-To: | djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com |
Errors-To: | nobody AT delorie DOT com |
X-Mailing-List: | djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com |
X-Unsubscribes-To: | listserv AT delorie DOT com |
On Sun, 18 Feb 2001, Tim Van Holder wrote: > So I added an ugly hack to work around this. So I wanted to > know if it was OK if autoconf didn't support any bash prior > to 2.03 (or any other shell that doesn't grok mixed EOLs). IMHO, there's no need to support versions of Bash prior to 2.03.
webmaster | delorie software privacy |
Copyright © 2019 by DJ Delorie | Updated Jul 2019 |