[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: autoconf 2.49c fails if '.' is in PATH
From: |
Alexandre Oliva |
Subject: |
Re: autoconf 2.49c fails if '.' is in PATH |
Date: |
03 Feb 2001 16:29:32 -0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.1 (Crater Lake) |
On Feb 3, 2001, Akim Demaille <address@hidden> wrote:
> The question is `is $FILE an executable in the common sense'.
I think the best thing to do is to just ignore the issue of whether
the found executable is a directory while testing -x or -f, and test
for -d later on, notifying the user and possibly aborting. This
second test might have false positives on Cygwin if x/ and x.exe
exist, but I really don't care. I'd rather warn the user that
something bad is about to happen.
As a data point to support this choice, directories aren't generally
skipped when searching the PATH. So why should we?
--
Alexandre Oliva Enjoy Guarana', see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Red Hat GCC Developer address@hidden, redhat.com}
CS PhD student at IC-Unicamp address@hidden, gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist *Please* write to mailing lists, not to me
RE: autoconf 2.49c fails if '.' is in PATH, Tim Van Holder, 2001/02/04
Re: autoconf 2.49c fails if '.' is in PATH, Akim Demaille, 2001/02/02
RE: autoconf 2.49c fails if '.' is in PATH, Bernard Dautrevaux, 2001/02/02