delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi   search  
Mail Archives: djgpp-workers/2001/04/12/15:44:53

From: "Tim Van Holder" <tim DOT van DOT holder AT pandora DOT be>
To: <djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com>
Subject: Re: New bash 2.04 beta release
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 21:45:23 +0200
Message-ID: <CAEGKOHJKAAFPKOCLHDIIEHECCAA.tim.van.holder@pandora.be>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
In-reply-to: <9003-Thu12Apr2001214030+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il>
Importance: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
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

> > But if configure uses only $ac_path_separator, which would have 
> been found
> > as ';', it would not be able to walk the path if PATH_SEPARATOR 
> is set to
> > ':'.
> 
> That's not something Autoconf should care about.  If a user wants to
> shoot herself in the foot, it's not Autoconf's business to prevent her
> from doing that.
But you yourself have been arguing that PATH_SEPARATOR=: is generally
needed to work around broken scripts; so having it set that way could
not really be seen as 'shooting herself in the foot'.


> > There could only be a problem if someone has
> > 
> > PATH_SEPARATOR = @PATH_SEPARATOR@
> 
> That's what I thought was planned.
Well, that is how such variables are usually set, so I suppose it is
quite feasible people may use it that way.

> Anyway, I'm tired of arguing about this.  You've asked for opinions;
> you have mine, and I stand by it, even now.  Since you are doing the
> work (thanks!), you get to decide what to do about my opinions.

OK.  Since Akim is going for a code freeze for 2.50 tomorrow, I won't
be able to get anything changed in the official version.  I'll
probably release a DJGPP version using the current code; I'd like to
ask everyone on this list to try it out to flush out as many bugs as
possible; it's generally expected for a 2.51 release to follow fairly
quickly and it would be nice to get this all resolved in that version.

- Raw text -


  webmaster     delorie software   privacy  
  Copyright © 2019   by DJ Delorie     Updated Jul 2019