On Sat, Oct 14, 2000 at 01:35:29PM +0200, Fredrik Lundh wrote:
> Thomas Wouters wrote:
> > (Or perhaps change the patch to read 'OSF1)' instead of 'OSF*)'
> > in the case stmt, to be conservative.)
> are there really any others?
Don't know. That's why I asked it :)
> (that "1" is part of the original name, it's not a version number)
Ah, but that doesn't explain why configure.in OSF*) in some cases, and OSF1)
in others:
case $ac_sys_system in
OSF1) CC=cc
without_gcc=;;
versus
if test -z "$LDSHARED"
then
case $ac_sys_system/$ac_sys_release in
[..]
OSF*) LDSHARED="ld -shared -expect_unresolved \"*\"";;
[..]
I guess the OSF*) action is specific enough (most likely to lead to errors
on systems that call themselves, say, OSFORME) that we don't really have to
worry about it right now.
--
Thomas Wouters <thomas@xs4all.net>
Hi! I'm a .signature virus! copy me into your .signature file to help me spread!
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4