From: Boon van der RJ Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp Subject: Re: Recursive make: portable technique? Date: 23 Oct 1998 11:42:54 GMT Organization: Fac. Wiskunde & Informatica, VU, Amsterdam Lines: 38 Message-ID: <70pq3u$cju$1@star.cs.vu.nl> References: <362FF086 DOT BDA6266C AT montana DOT com> NNTP-Posting-Host: sloep68.cs.vu.nl User-Agent: tin/pre-1.4-981002 ("Phobia") (UNIX) (SunOS/5.5.1 (sun4m)) Originator: rjvdboon AT sloep68 DOT cs DOT vu DOT nl To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com bowman wrote: > I found that doing an explicit cd ../original_dir fixed the problem, > and there were a few exchanges about this in the archives that indicated > this was the case. > I ran a small test using this hack with bash available, and pointed to > by SHELL, and it still seemed to work. > So, my question, is the explicit cd safe in all configurations, or will > I get burnt? Don't know about all systems, but on our unix (Sun) system, using bash with -P (follow physical links, not symbolic) could(not?) create problems.[1] But if SHELL=/bin/sh I think there should be no problem. bye now, Robert. [1] What I mean is, if you have a tree set up like: /usr/package1 /usr/package2 -> /net/package2 you make in /usr/package1, this make says: cd ../package2; make cd ../package1 the cd ../package2 sets you to /net/package2, which means that cd ../package1 doesn't work (package1 is in /usr, not /net) but if make returns to package1 by itself then the cd ../package1 can't hurt either. So bottom line is: I don't think there will be a problem with such an approach (not even taking into acount the unlikeliness of the tree set up and use of it described above) -- rjvdboon AT cs DOT vu DOT nl | "En dat is niet waar!" sprak ex-Staatsecretaris- www.cs.vu.nl/~rjvdboon | van-Onderwijs Netelenbos fel.