Robert Schiele <rschiele@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Fri, Aug 03, 2007 at 01:52:32AM +0200, David Kastrup wrote: >> I was starting to doubt my sanity here. Sorry that this thread >> resulted in wasted work for you. > > That's ok. I mean I didn't spot the SHELL_PATH thing in the first > place although I already had seen that one before (what I remember > now). > > At least in that case I don't have to worry any longer since I > always can put some compliant shell at some random place and use > that one. > > But at least you have learned now that not everything in the real > world looks like as it is written in some standard books. ;-) You are aware that I am the maintainer of AUCTeX? Which has an autoconf-based setup that works under AIX, Solaris, MinGW, Cygwin, HP/UX and a few other oddities, all with the respective native tools? I know more about stupid shells than I really want to. But that does not change that I could not imagine a shell such as yours to work "mostly" with the current git code base. For autoconf, it is fine to call sed (and you would probably not believe how small the portable language subset for sed is) all the time. Performance is not an issue. For normal user commands, this is different. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
