On Sep 14, 2010, at 15:36, Thomas Dickey wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Sep 2010, Jeremy Huddleston wrote:
>
>>
>> On Sep 14, 2010, at 14:06, Thomas Dickey wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 14 Sep 2010, Julien Cristau wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 09:50:44 -0400, Gaetan Nadon wrote:
>>>> [] in configure is a PITA because [] are special in m4. That doesn't
>>>> apply to this script.
>>>
>>> Actually, autoconf changes the quotes _to_ [] from the more-pervasive `'.
>>>
>>> ("test" is used for portability, though this list doesn't touch much on
>>> that).
>>
>> I belive we are concerned about portability. Do you have an example of a
>> bourne-derived shell (we're talking about sh after all) that doesn't have
>> support for [] on a system that doesn't have an [ executable in $PATH?
>
> probably, but it's likely older than the roughly 2-year (at most) scope of
> interest in this list.
Well, without a concrete example, I'm not sure we have much to go on. We
obviously do keep portability in mind. The modularization of the server into
DIX and DDX is one main example. As another, we do our best to not to break
(and fix) support for gcc-2.95 as it is used for sparc/BSD. That's certainly
larger than your purported 2-year scope of interest. I believe that anyone
interested in building the ToT X11 codebase will have at-least a 12 year old
toolchain and POSIX environment at their disposal.
_______________________________________________
[email protected]: X.Org development
Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel
Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
