delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi   search  
Mail Archives: djgpp/2000/01/19/10:53:27

Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 12:20:31 +0200 (IST)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: Ian Chapman <ichapman AT nortelnetworks DOT com>
cc: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: Bash sh
In-Reply-To: <3884AB4D.DC19E66D@nortelnetworks.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1000119121520.9609f-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: dj-admin AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com

On Tue, 18 Jan 2000, Ian Chapman wrote:

> First they do not seem to be executable.

Please explain what do you mean by that.  DOS/Windows filesystems don't 
have the execute bit in the file's attributes.  DJGPP library functions 
consider a file executable if (among other possibilities) it has the 
telltale "#! /bin/sh" string on its first line.  But even if there's no 
such line, I don't think the ported Bash would mind (although I didn't 
test that right now).

What exactly happens when the scripts do NOT run?  Error messages?  
Crashes?  Please describe this.

> However, they do run some of the time.  I think if I look at them with 
> less after that the system seems to know what they are.

This sounds like a black magic to me.  How come viewing a file with Less 
suddenly changes how the filesystem treats it?

On what OS did you see this?

> Second I thought that these were a
> wee bit like .bat files once the header was set up all you needed on the
> second etc. lines was:-
> my_prog  my_data
> 		however, it can not find my_prog which is in ~/bin.

Is "~/bin" in your PATH?

- Raw text -


  webmaster     delorie software   privacy  
  Copyright © 2019   by DJ Delorie     Updated Jul 2019