Date:	Sun, 10 Jan 1999 18:55:38 +0200 (IST)
From:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender:	eliz AT is
To:	"Mark E." <melbrecht1 AT ibm DOT net>
cc:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: shell utils 1.16 question
In-Reply-To:	<199901101550.PAA86044@out1.ibm.net>
Message-ID:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.990110185059.3155A-100000@is>
MIME-Version:	1.0
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com

On Sun, 10 Jan 1999, Mark E. wrote:

> I proposed testing $COMSPEC to the autoconf mailing list before 
> my e-mail outage, but this solution was also rejected in the mail I 
> read a few minutes. If I hadn't already deleted the e-mail with the 
> reason, I could have quoted the reason here, but I do remember it 
> saying something like the solution not being in the spirit of 
> autoconf. 

Please ask them to explain their reasons again, and this time make sure 
djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com is listed in the cc: header, so that people 
here could read the replies.

Since several maintainers of GNU packages were very happy with this 
solution, I cannot grasp the reason for saying it's ``against the spirit 
of Autoconf''.  (Unless quite a few GNU maintainers are also against that 
spirit.)

Perhaps what they were against was not the test for $COMSPEC, but what 
is done given the results of the test.  A discussion should make their 
intent clear.

- Raw text -