Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

freetds - Re: [freetds] status: documentation

freetds AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: FreeTDS Development Group

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "James K. Lowden" <jklowden AT schemamania.org>
  • To: FreeTDS Development Group <freetds AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [freetds] status: documentation
  • Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 18:51:58 -0500

On Tue, 23 Dec 2003, "ZIGLIO Frediano" <Frediano.Ziglio AT vodafone.com>
wrote:
> Some add-on... Where should my test-dist.sh file be in CVS ? Add an
> other directory ??

I think it belongs in the root of the distribution, don't you?

> [ is not so portable, use test instead..

I think that's an old wives' tale. :-)

http://sources.redhat.com/autobook/autobook/autobook_216.html#SEC216
http://www.linuxselfhelp.com/gnu/autoconf/html_chapter/autoconf_10.html

Also: Unix Shell Programming, by Lowell Jay Arthur
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0471518204/qid=1072222113//ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i7_xgl14/103-8929071-0787058?v=glance&s=books&n=507846#product-details

>From what I've found, [ is very portable, and much more readable than
"test". It conflicts with m4, so it can't be used in configure.in, but
it's completely safe in Makefile.am.

AFAIK, "make" relies Bourne Shell semantics, never ksh or csh, for
instance. We support only BSD and GNU make, so I think it's highly
unlikely that a random system's "make" will suffice if its /bin/sh fails
to understand "[".

If you know of a shell without '[' -- that people use and that runs on a
system with no /usr/bin/[ -- then I agree, we have to remove it. Else I
think it's preferable to "test".

--jkl




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page