Re: Running a plain ./config.status at top level

[Akim Demaille <akim at epita dot fr>]

[For the records]

>>> "Akim" == Akim Demaille <akim@freefriends.org> writes:
 
[About $? in Make rule]
 adl> That less accurate, though.  $? works at least on GNU, Solaris,
 adl> *BSD, OSF/Tru64, and HP-UX.  (It's POSIX, of course.)  Maybe we
 adl> could use $? just to discover whether it's really portable, and switch
 adl> back to `ls -1t' (or `ls -1dt', is the `d' important?) if it turns
 adl> out it doesn't work somewhere.  Otherwise we'll never know.

 adl> (BTW, `-1' isn't listed as a portable option of `ls' in the Autoconf
 adl> manual.  Is that an omission?)

I don't know whether the -d is important, and I'm pretty much both -1
and -d are portable.  Actually, I learned this means to compute the
most recent file from Alexandre Oliva, who is an extremely careful
portable shell script author.  He has included this is his still born
AdHoC (which M4sh is supposed to replace).

autoreconf used to use it too, when it was written in shell script.