What about PATH issues and '.'? It may not be a problem, but the
thought leapt into my mind...
H
--
> Following these lines, it's nonsense to maintain some
> half-support for non-executable install-sh. If we don't want to
> support this use-case, ${SHELL} should be fully removed from
> every cal
Hello Ralf!
On Sun, Sep 03, 2006 at 09:33:20AM +0200, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> I say we drop the test and require that install-sh be executable.
> After all, this is so much easier to do.
>
> OK to apply?
Sounds good (I didn't understand the advantage of non-executable install-sh)
- though you h
On Fri, 1 Sep 2006, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
However, the question about introducing AM_FC_SRCEXT was rather meant
the other way round: Can there be uses where you would like to know for
some reason the answer to
AC_FC_SRCEXT([f])
but in your source tree, you have files with extension .f that shou
Hello Alexandre,
* Alexandre Duret-Lutz wrote on Wed, Sep 06, 2006 at 01:44:34PM CEST:
> >>> "RW" == Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> RW> Maybe there is a solution to all cases. But until then, I don't think
> RW> it's a good idea to advertise half-solutions, and employ half-tests
>>> "RW" == Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
RW> Maybe there is a solution to all cases. But until then, I don't think
RW> it's a good idea to advertise half-solutions, and employ half-tests.
RW> And yes, that is very much IMHO.
Following these lines, it's nonsense to mainta
>>> "RW" == Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
RW> While I understand this, I do think your change is unfortunate:
RW> First, it require Autoconf to always use `mkdir' with an absolute
RW> directory. This is neither documented nor is it a desirable situation:
RW> http://lists.
