Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact ant-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 88689 invoked from network); 9 Feb 2000 03:18:07 -0000 Received: from renoir.op.net (root@207.29.195.4) by locus.apache.org with SMTP; 9 Feb 2000 03:18:07 -0000 Received: from vega.sudell.org (d-bm4-2a.ppp.op.net [209.152.194.138]) by renoir.op.net (o1/$Revision: 1.18 $) with ESMTP id WAA19543 for ; Tue, 8 Feb 2000 22:18:05 -0500 (EST) Received: (from asudell@localhost) by vega.sudell.org (8.9.2/8.9.2) id WAA00362; Tue, 8 Feb 2000 22:18:07 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from asudell@mail.Op.Net) From: "Andrew B. Sudell" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2000 22:18:06 -0500 (EST) To: ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org Subject: Re: Shell portability In-Reply-To: <8525687F.00839310.00@d54mta04.raleigh.ibm.com> References: <8525687F.00839310.00@d54mta04.raleigh.ibm.com> X-Mailer: VM 6.43 under 20.4 "Emerald" XEmacs Lucid Message-ID: <14496.56275.422170.337732@vega.sudell.org> Reply-To: asudell@acm.org rubys@us.ibm.com writes: > > > Andrew Sudell wrote: > > I had made a post last week about shell portability, that didn't > > generate much of a reply. I'm assuming that it is desirable for Ant to > > build cleanly on as wide a range of systems as possible. I've now seen > > a second ksh-ism or posix-ism show up. > > My assumptions match your assumptions. I introduced these regressions on > you - sorry about that. > No problem. I sort of assumed that someone was working on a system where the difference didn't show. (There are a lot of them.) It was odd that no one commented last time, but Ant's been making a lot of forward progress and it was a minor issue. Drew -- Drew Sudell asudell@op.net http://www.op.net/~asudell