[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: autoconf 2.49c fails if '.' is in PATH
From: |
Earnie Boyd |
Subject: |
Re: autoconf 2.49c fails if '.' is in PATH |
Date: |
Fri, 02 Feb 2001 09:38:57 -0500 |
Akim Demaille wrote:
>
> >>>>> "Tim" == Tim Van Holder <address@hidden> writes:
>
> Tim> Yes and no. The reason we try to use 'test -x' is so that 'test
> Tim> -x foo' will pick up foo.exe. I had not thought of this finding
> Tim> directories (then again, I don't have . in my path). I agree this
> Tim> is a serious problem; even with no '.' in the PATH
>
> Absolutely.
>
> But I never read explicitly your environment also has this problem.
> Has it, or has it not? Because we can
>
> Unix:
> test -x && test -f
This test would work for Cygwin as well.
>
> DOS says no to test -x directory
> test -x && :
>
This wouldn't work text -x directory returns true.
> DOS says yes to test -x directory
> test -x && test ! -d
This test would work for Cygwin.
There is a caveat to "would work". If I have executable foo.exe and
directory foo then both tests returns false. Given this, I don't see
anyway out of `((test -x foo.exe && test -f foo.exe) || (test -x foo &&
test -f foo))'.
Earnie.
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
- RE: autoconf 2.49c fails if '.' is in PATH, Bernard Dautrevaux, 2001/02/01
- Re: autoconf 2.49c fails if '.' is in PATH, Akim Demaille, 2001/02/02
- Re: autoconf 2.49c fails if '.' is in PATH,
Earnie Boyd <=
- Re: autoconf 2.49c fails if '.' is in PATH, Akim Demaille, 2001/02/02
- Re: autoconf 2.49c fails if '.' is in PATH, Akim Demaille, 2001/02/03
- Re: autoconf 2.49c fails if '.' is in PATH, Alexandre Oliva, 2001/02/03
- Re: autoconf 2.49c fails if '.' is in PATH, Akim Demaille, 2001/02/19
- Re: autoconf 2.49c fails if '.' is in PATH, Earnie Boyd, 2001/02/19
RE: autoconf 2.49c fails if '.' is in PATH, Tim Van Holder, 2001/02/04
Re: autoconf 2.49c fails if '.' is in PATH, Akim Demaille, 2001/02/02