Sender:	vheyndri AT rug DOT ac DOT be
Message-Id:	<34797B46.7423@rug.ac.be>
Date:	Mon, 24 Nov 1997 14:04:06 +0100
From:	Vik Heyndrickx <Vik DOT Heyndrickx AT rug DOT ac DOT be>
Mime-Version:	1.0
To:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Cc:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: Possible enhancements on v2.02
References:	<Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 971124144623 DOT 23713o-100000 AT is>

Eli Zaretskii wrote:
 
> > >                                            The changes in dosexec are
> > >         minor, but I wonder whether they could break anything.
> > Make sure you make them right
> That's what you, and the rest of beta-testers, are for ;-).

You mean all DJGPP users? Don't answer this.

> > take the following names in mind:
> > .netsc.vik
> > vik.netsc.
> 
> I'm missing something here.  What's so special about these?

Nothing, just make sure they work. I think there's a good change they
will not.
the first should have been simply .netsc

What the problem with solving problems before they occur. I am not a
politician.

> > BTW the later is equivalent to 'vik.netsc' under W95

I said "vik.netsc." is the same file as "vik.netsc" under W95,
regardless how DJGPP treats them.

-- 
 \ Vik /-_-_-_-_-_-_/   
  \___/ Heyndrickx /          
   \ /-_-_-_-_-_-_/

- Raw text -