Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2000 18:17:50 +0500 Message-Id: <200004091317.SAA00692@midpec.com> From: Prashant TR To: eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il CC: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com In-reply-to: (message from Eli Zaretskii on Sun, 9 Apr 2000 13:09:02 +0200 (IST)) Subject: Re: Porting problems with Sh-utils (beta) References: 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 Precedence: bulk > > 2> Modified the last line to > > $(COMPILE) -c -o $@ $< > > > > and it works! In fact BASH doesn't like anything within the `....` > > I find the last assertion hard to believe, at least in general. `...` > works for me in many cases, at least in Bash 2.03. What version of Bash > do you use? I'm using BASH 2.03. > So please post the details, I'm sure Mark would like to see them. If you > can come up with a short Makefile to reproduce just this problem, please > post it. If not, post all the relevant files. Ok, I have a simple makefile and a script here. Usually in both the sets of makefiles, the output "There is no bug in BASH!" is expected. However, the first case doesn't show it while the second does! I tried the same thing on Linux, but it works alright (shows the message both the times). ***************************************** Makefile: ----- SHELL = /bin/sh all: source='There is no bug in BASH!' \ $(SHELL) ./script \ echo `echo`script executed ***************************************** Script: ----- #!/bin/sh echo $source ******************************************* Makefile (version 2): ---- SHELL = /bin/sh all: source='There is no bug in BASH!' \ $(SHELL) ./script \ echo script executed ******************************************* > I'd suggest to wait with the patches until we understand this weird > problem. Yes, I'll release a beta on Simtel once the work is done so I won't need to write to the maintainer too many times.