On 11-Aug-05, 15:59 (CDT), Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > As a practical matter, any modern Solaris (>=7, probably even 2.6 and 2.5)
> > machine has /usr/xpg4/bin/sh installed.
> >
> > Steve
>
> But what if there is a /usr/xpg4/bin/sh that isn't posix? :)
See, the nice thing
Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 10-Aug-05, 13:38 (CDT), Philip Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > [1] Useful fragment for cross platform shell scripts:
>> >
>> > #!/bin/sh
>> > # Do the Solaris Dance:
>> > if [ ! -d ~root ] ; then
>> > exec /usr/xpg4/bin/sh $0 "$@"
>> >
On 10-Aug-05, 13:38 (CDT), Philip Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [1] Useful fragment for cross platform shell scripts:
> >
> > #!/bin/sh
> > # Do the Solaris Dance:
> > if [ ! -d ~root ] ; then
> > exec /usr/xpg4/bin/sh $0 "$@"
> > fi
> >
>
> sigh.. okay, my "correction" had bugs, t
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
sigh.. okay, my "correction" had bugs, too :-)
better as
if [ ! -d ~root -a -x /usr/xpg4/bin/sh ] ; then
Better yet, be POSIX compliant:
if [ ! -d ~root ] && [ -x /usr/xpg4/bin/sh ] ; then
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscr
> [1] Useful fragment for cross platform shell scripts:
>
> #!/bin/sh
> # Do the Solaris Dance:
> if [ ! -d ~root ] ; then
> exec /usr/xpg4/bin/sh $0 "$@"
> fi
>
sigh.. okay, my "correction" had bugs, too :-)
better as
if [ ! -d ~root -a -x /usr/xpg4/bin/sh ] ; then
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE
On Mon, Aug 01, 2005 at 08:45:10AM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> [1] Useful fragment for cross platform shell scripts:
>
> #!/bin/sh
> # Do the Solaris Dance:
> if [ ! -d ~root ] ; then
> exec /usr/xpg4/bin/sh $0 "$@"
> fi
Umm.. Ick it woudl be better as
if [ -x /usr/xpg4/bin/sh ] ;
On 31-Jul-05, 19:53 (CDT), Bernd Eckenfels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, currently Solaris is doing bit advertisemet that they did not (never?)
> break compatibility.
Which leads to wonderful things like /bin/sh *still* not being POSIX,
or even ksh[1]...compatibility is nice, but it's not t
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> We can't keep the same ABI and toolchain forever, can we?
Well, currently Solaris is doing bit advertisemet that they did not (never?)
break compatibility. However since I am not into C++ ABI I cant comment if
the current interface is ok or not. It is ju
On Sun, Jul 31, 2005 at 08:22:26AM -0600, Wesley J. Landaker wrote:
> On Sunday 31 July 2005 00:19, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > we currently have almost 800 RC bugs in etch due to small glitches that
> > started to make code FTBFS with the new gcc version.
> > It is urgently necessary that maintainer
On Sunday 31 July 2005 08:22, Wesley J. Landaker wrote:
> I don't want to rant, but since you are urging NMUs and apparently doing
> them yourself. Your recent NMU of cheeesetracker compiled it against two
> C++ ABIs; you could avoided this if you read the bug report and my
> response. Also, always
On 7/31/05, Bernd Eckenfels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> > I don't want to rant, but since you are urging NMUs and apparently doing
> > them yourself. Your recent NMU of cheeesetracker compiled it against two
> > C++ ABIs; you could avoided this if you re
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> I don't want to rant, but since you are urging NMUs and apparently doing
> them yourself. Your recent NMU of cheeesetracker compiled it against two
> C++ ABIs; you could avoided this if you read the bug report and my
> response. Also, always contact th
On Sunday 31 July 2005 00:19, Andreas Barth wrote:
> we currently have almost 800 RC bugs in etch due to small glitches that
> started to make code FTBFS with the new gcc version.
>
> It is urgently necessary that maintainers start to fix their own
> packages, and that whoever has some time at thei
13 matches
Mail list logo
