Hi Werner, On Thursday 19 May 2005 1:03 pm, you wrote: > This will interest you. > > > According to the autoconf info files > > this might cause problems on some old platforms. > > As far as I know, that's incorrect information promulgated originally by > Greg what's-his-name, many years ago. It's come up many times since and > no one has ever come up with an actual platform on which it is a > problem, to my knowledge. Certainly none that still exist today, in any > case. > > I thought it had been eradicated from the autoconf docs some years ago. > Oh well. > > but I think it is a good idea to make > all shebangs in the various scripts look similar. > > If someone wants to take the time to change it, that's ok with me, but I > don't think it's necessary. Ok. Thanks for the update. I hadn't been aware of it as a problem myself. I simply noticed the recommendation in the autoconf info files, and realised that groff has a number of scripts which didn't conform, so, in my groff CVS sandbox, I did for f in `grep -lr '#!/' .` do sed 's?#!/?#! /?' $f > xx && mv xx $f done cvs -z5 diff -u | gzip > patchfile.gz to create the patch, and a similar trick to generate most of the ChangeLog entry, so I didn't waste much time on it. If it isn't really a problem, then it's no big deal if you want to revert the patch, or leave it as it is now -- everything should work fine either way. However, the misleading advice, if indeed it is so, really should be expunged from the autoconf documentation, IMHO. Best regards, Keith. _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@xxxxxxx http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
