On Tue, 4 May 2004 23:24:11 -0400, Eric Sunshine wrote: > On Mon, 03 May 2004 08:44:46 +0200, Alexandre Duret-Lutz wrote: > > http://mail.gnu.org/archive/html/autoconf-patches/2004-04/msg00019.html > > Hmm, it seems to me this will just hide this problem, not really > > cure it. Am I mistaken? > No, I wouldn't say that it hides the problem. If the tests have gotten this > far (to the point of considering $SHELL as a candidate), then the situation > is already dire. It means that the shell selection code was unable to find > a suitable shell in any of the normal locations (including $PATH) under any > of the normal names. The search has exhausted all normal means of locating > an agreeable shell, so it might as well try $SHELL as an absolete last > resort. After all, $SHELL _might_ just reference a usable shell. If it > does, great, disaster averted. If it does not, well, then the dire > situation is still dire. Upon re-consideration, yes, it does just hide the problem, though the rest of my statement is still relvant. :-) -- ES
