Mailing-List: contact cygwin-developers-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-developers-owner AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-developers AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com Message-ID: <38E4FB04.C95F5120@vinschen.de> Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 21:22:44 +0200 From: Corinna Vinschen Reply-To: cygdev X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.13 i686) X-Accept-Language: de, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mumit Khan CC: cygwin-developers AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com Subject: Re: net release/installer status? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mumit Khan wrote: > > On Tue, 28 Mar 2000, Chris Faylor wrote: > > > > > I don't see a syntax error. It seems to be legal to have: > > > > for f ; in stuff; do > > > > I don't know why you're seeing an error. Is the above command an error > > on your system? > > Same here. Bash, pdksh, ash, the real ksh from AT&T, all handle this > correctly. > > I just updated the tree, built on a Linux box, and all is happy. Corinna, > please let me know if you're still having problems, and if the command > above does not work for you. If it doesn't, I have no problem with > adding a workaround something like: > > 2000-03-30 Mumit Khan > > * Makefile.in (subdirs): Workaround for broken shells. > > Index: Makefile.in > =================================================================== > RCS file: /cvs/src/src/winsup/mingw/Makefile.in,v > retrieving revision 1.1.1.1 > diff -u -3 -p -r1.1.1.1 Makefile.in > --- Makefile.in 2000/02/17 19:38:31 1.1.1.1 > +++ Makefile.in 2000/03/31 03:43:55 > @@ -212,7 +212,8 @@ install: all > @$(MAKE) subdirs DO=$@ $(FLAGS_TO_PASS) > > subdirs: force > - @for i in $(SUBDIRS); do \ > + @test -z "$(SUBDIRS)" && exit 0; \ > + for i in $(SUBDIRS); do \ > echo "Making $(DO) in $${i}..." ; \ > if [ -d ./$$i ] ; then \ > if (rootme=`pwd`/ ; export rootme ; \ > > Regards, > Mumit Unfortunately, the error message remains the same with my `old' bash. It's still a syntax error for that bash to get an empty list after `for i in'. Interesting: A really old bash (version 1.14) doesn't complain about that statement... Corinna