Re: gEDA-user: one fix for building under Solaris

[Dave McGuire <mcguire@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Jan 5, 2009, at 1:18 PM, der Mouse wrote:
>>> It does not require bash.  NetBSD's stock sh, for example, which is
>>> definitely not bash - it appears to be based on ash - accepts it
>>> just fine.
>> [I]t's still not a Bourne shell script, if it contains stuff that the
>> Bourne shell does not recognize.
>
> Well, yes; that's almost a tautology.  But what is a "Bourne shell"
> these days?

   /bin/sh on a modern system.

> If you mean just the shell written by S. R. Bourne, then
> yes, it's not a Bourne shell script, but that's pretty much  
> irrelevant,
> because I doubt there's anyone still using the real Bourne code.
> (Well, anyone who cares about gEDA; there are probably a few people
> running V9 on real PDP-11s and the like.)  Also, the real Bourne code
> lacks a lot of things that "everyone" supports these days - I think a
> more useful working definition is "stock /bin/sh", which is a  
> different
> thing for each target environment and is more a matter for deciding
> what platforms to care about and what ones not and experimenting.

   You're picking terminological nits, Mouse...you know exactly what  
I meant.  When /bin/sh on the most modern commercial UNIX  
implementation won't run a script that is supposedly written for /bin/ 
sh, that's a problem.

   Now, of course, my build has blown up because gschem's configure  
script seems to want gnome-config, for some unknown reason.

   I upgraded cairo to 1.8.6 for this, and now my ORIGINAL  
installation of gschem segfaults on startup!  (of course, now that I  
think of it, it could've been glib, gtk+, pango, atk...I am so fucked)

   Guys?  WTF?

            -Dave

-- 
Dave McGuire
Port Charlotte, FL




_______________________________________________
geda-user mailing list
geda-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user