[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: deplibs_check_method=test_compile
From: |
Ralf Wildenhues |
Subject: |
Re: deplibs_check_method=test_compile |
Date: |
Tue, 7 Feb 2006 14:19:11 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.11 |
* Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 02:06:54PM CET:
> Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> >
> > I have come to prefer more minimal quoting in examples, in order to make
> > above difference a bit more explicit: it took me a long time to grasp
> > this peculiarity of shell syntax.
>
> You have grasped it?! I still have to resort to typing at the prompt
> to figure out what I need in some cases.
It's the bonus of stuff like
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gnu.libtool.patches/4614 ;-)
I do trial and error, of course, but when I think I have the right thing
I try to verify that it really does what I mean.
> One other thing that comes to mind (and the main reason for this reply),
> is that there is a good argument that the following is never entirely
> safe:
>
> test "$w00t" -ne 0
>
> because it doesn't allow for dangerous expansions of "$w00t" to, say,
> `-x'.
Well, in fear of contradicting myself, but: if you definitely _know_
that $w00t expands to a number, then you can be sure that this is safe.
If not, then you have a point; although shells misparsing above are
getting few and far between.
> So we really ought to using:
>
> test x"$w00t" != "x0"
>
> and so perhaps we should add a TODO item to perform that fix throughout
> libtool's shell code, and fixup HACKING to note this idio{m,sycracy}?
Not really, IMVHO. The few instances that use `-ne' seem pretty safe to
me. For the rest there are tests in sh.test, which will guide you to use
test "X$w00t" != "X0"
instead. ;-)
Cheers,
Ralf