[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Running ./config.status
From: |
Ralf Wildenhues |
Subject: |
Re: Running ./config.status |
Date: |
Fri, 4 Feb 2005 15:59:57 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.4.1i |
* Noah Misch wrote on Fri, Feb 04, 2005 at 03:32:01PM CET:
> On Fri, Feb 04, 2005 at 02:49:29PM +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > On Fri, 2005-02-04 at 05:10 -0800, Noah Misch wrote:
> > > If you believe `man perlrun', some systems do not respect #! and start all
> > > scripts under csh.
http://www.in-ulm.de/~mascheck/various/shebang/ and
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/unix-faq/faq/part3/section-16.html
provide useful hints toward what Noah hints at,
and the former also has a list concerning length limitation.
> > I assume, the systems they refer to, actually are victim to the length
> > limitations some systems impose on "!# " lines.
>
> These appear to be two distinct issues.
Yes.
> > > $(SHELL) ./script defends against that.
> > Theoretically, the "#!" limitations also could hit autoconf scripts,
> > esp. if autoconf is heading towards choosing "suitable shells on $PATH"
> > instead of using standard shells.
> > So adding $(SHELL) might not be wrong.
Yes. I'd expect the number of problematic systems to be small, however.
> Good point. I suspect more systems still in use truncate #! than execute
> scripts by running them through csh.
This is more likely an actual issue.
Please leave the $(SHELL) in.
Regards,
Ralf
- atconfig rule, Stepan Kasal, 2005/02/02
- Re: atconfig rule, Paul Eggert, 2005/02/03
- Running ./config.status, Stepan Kasal, 2005/02/04
- Re: Running ./config.status, Noah Misch, 2005/02/04
- Re: Running ./config.status, Ralf Corsepius, 2005/02/04
- Re: Running ./config.status, Noah Misch, 2005/02/04
- Re: Running ./config.status,
Ralf Wildenhues <=
- Re: Running ./config.status, Paul Eggert, 2005/02/04
- Re: Running ./config.status, Alexandre Duret-Lutz, 2005/02/04
- Re: Running ./config.status, Ralf Corsepius, 2005/02/04