Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Date:	Thu, 10 Feb 2005 20:43:49 -0500
Message-Id:	<200502110143.j1B1hnC00593@f7.net>
From:	karl AT freefriends DOT org (Karl Berry)
To:	kasal AT ucw DOT cz
Cc:	ebb9 AT byu DOT net, dave AT boost-consulting DOT com, akim AT epita DOT fr, cygwin AT cygwin DOT com,
	bug-texinfo AT gnu DOT org
Subject:	Re: Fw: bug in texi2dvi, and hack patch
In-Reply-To:	<20050124083421.GA2986@matsrv.math.cas.cz>

Back on this thread about texi2dvi and cygwin from a couple weeks ago.

    2) On cygwin, if both $dir/tex.exe exists and a directory $dir/tex/ exist,
    this function misses the existence of tex.exe.

I don't see why the presence of $dir/tex would affect things.
tex.exe would never be found on cygwin with the present code, as I
understand it.

So I added an explicit check for foo.exe, for Cygwin's sake.  test -x
will work, right?  (If a Unix system has an executable foo.exe in PATH
first, they deserve what they get, IMO.)

I do not want to autoconfiscate texi2dvi, nor do I think it's necessary.

If you feel like testing, you can get the current version from texinfo
cvs at savannah.gnu.org, namely:
http://savannah.gnu.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs/*checkout*/texinfo/texinfo/util/texi2dvi?rev=HEAD&content-type=text/plain

Thanks,
karl

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

- Raw text -