Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 13:03:28 +0200 (IST)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: Tim Van Holder <tim DOT van DOT holder AT pandora DOT be>
cc: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: What versions of bash should the next autoconf support?
In-Reply-To: <CAEGKOHJKAAFPKOCLHDIOEKMCAAA.tim.van.holder@pandora.be>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1010218130301.6713B-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk


On Sun, 18 Feb 2001, Tim Van Holder wrote:

> So I added an ugly hack to work around this. So I wanted to
> know if it was OK if autoconf didn't support any bash prior
> to 2.03 (or any other shell that doesn't grok mixed EOLs).

IMHO, there's no need to support versions of Bash prior to 2.03.