[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: carriage return line endings vs. literal ^M in status.m4
From: |
Jim Meyering |
Subject: |
Re: carriage return line endings vs. literal ^M in status.m4 |
Date: |
Sat, 05 Apr 2008 14:54:37 +0200 |
Ralf Wildenhues <address@hidden> wrote:
> * Jim Meyering wrote on Sat, Apr 05, 2008 at 02:26:40PM CEST:
>>
>> Complete patch below.
>> I'll point Elbert at a coreutils snapshot to test this.
>
> How about this slightly simpler patch instead? If you don't like it,
> then I think your patch is a definite improvement, and is OK by me.
I prefer yours and almost went that way myself, but wonder if it's
portable enough. I don't see any other uses of 'if...fi <', in autoconf.
>> The above-quoted use of sed also makes a point of converting ^M bytes
>> that are not at end of line. Any idea if/why that's needed?
>> I've confirmed that it serves no purpose in coreutils; i.e.,
>> its subs1.awk contains no embedded CR.
>
> Well, if you had
> AC_SUBST([variable_that_contains_cr], ["
> "])
>
> then it would make a difference. The original aim was that users should
> be able to substitute any characters they like (except for \0). And the
> above is not so unlikely if the configure script itself happens to be
> converted to w32 text mode.
Good to know I wasn't preserving that code for nothing ;-)
I'll add a comment to that effect.
- Re: carriage return line endings vs. literal ^M in status.m4, (continued)
- Re: carriage return line endings vs. literal ^M in status.m4, Ralf Wildenhues, 2008/04/05
- Re: carriage return line endings vs. literal ^M in status.m4, Jim Meyering, 2008/04/05
- Re: carriage return line endings vs. literal ^M in status.m4, Eric Blake, 2008/04/05
- Re: carriage return line endings vs. literal ^M in status.m4, Jim Meyering, 2008/04/05
- Re: carriage return line endings vs. literal ^M in status.m4, Ralf Wildenhues, 2008/04/05
- Re: carriage return line endings vs. literal ^M in status.m4, Ralf Wildenhues, 2008/04/05
- Re: carriage return line endings vs. literal ^M in status.m4, Ralf Wildenhues, 2008/04/05
- Re: carriage return line endings vs. literal ^M in status.m4, Ralf Wildenhues, 2008/04/05
- Working os/2 configuratie, Elbert Pol, 2008/04/05
- Re: Working os/2 configuratie, Eric Blake, 2008/04/05
- Re: carriage return line endings vs. literal ^M in status.m4,
Jim Meyering <=
- Re: carriage return line endings vs. literal ^M in status.m4, Ralf Wildenhues, 2008/04/05
- Re: carriage return line endings vs. literal ^M in status.m4, Jim Meyering, 2008/04/05
- Re: carriage return line endings vs. literal ^M in status.m4, Ralf Wildenhues, 2008/04/05
- Re: carriage return line endings vs. literal ^M in status.m4, Jim Meyering, 2008/04/05
- Re: carriage return line endings vs. literal ^M in status.m4, Eric Blake, 2008/04/05
- Re: carriage return line endings vs. literal ^M in status.m4, Jim Meyering, 2008/04/05
- Re: carriage return line endings vs. literal ^M in status.m4, Ralf Wildenhues, 2008/04/05
- Re: carriage return line endings vs. literal ^M in status.m4, Elbert Pol, 2008/04/06
- Re: carriage return line endings vs. literal ^M in status.m4, Ralf Wildenhues, 2008/04/05
- Re: carriage return line endings vs. literal ^M in status.m4, Jim Meyering, 2008/04/05