Solaris issues (was: quoting bug in 2.0)

[Ralf Wildenhues]

* Bob Friesenhahn wrote on Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 06:29:57PM CET:
> On Wed, 1 Dec 2004, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> >On Wed, 1 Dec 2004, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> >
> >>OK to apply to HEAD and branch-2-0?
> >
> >Before this change is submitted I would like to know how Solaris 10 
> >(already available in trial form, and soon to be released) will be 
> >identified and handled.  Since Solaris 10 presumably adds a digit, is 
> >there other code in libtool which will unnecessarily misbehave under 
> >Solaris 10?
> 
> I probably was not clear.  It seems that this particular code is 
> likely to work for Solaris 10, but are there other libtool areas which 
> will not?

This is an issue.  However, it is orthogonal to my patch (I merely
checked for more quoting issues after the other quoting bug I found).

I don't have access to Solaris 10 or earlier.  But while we're here, I'd
really like to remind people of these Solaris issues here:

Patches I proposed and will add only when approved:
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libtool-patches/2004-11/msg00159.html

This started as a thread here:
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-libtool/2004-11/msg00088.html

and also refers back to here:
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-libtool/2004-09/msg00171.html

I'm Cc'ing the people that reported the bugs back then.  Maybe someone
can add something useful (given they're still interested).

Regards,
Ralf