Bob Friesenhahn wrote: > On Wed, 7 Apr 2010, Karl Berry wrote: >> >> In any event, I suspect that anyone using such an ancient system *and* >> installing a brand-new version of package foo that uses printf in its >> autoconfery would also have installed coreutils (or at least sh-utils), >> and therefore will have printf after all. > > Is it possible that coreutils/sh-utils configure scripts would then > depend on a working 'printf' capability so that it is not possible to > install them? The only workaround would be to try to bootstrap using > an older version which still does not require 'printf'. I think that's an adequate work-around. _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@xxxxxxx http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
