Date:	Wed, 20 Jan 1999 10:02:57 +0200 (IST)
From:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender:	eliz AT is
To:	Andris Pavenis <pavenis AT ieva05 DOT lanet DOT lv>
cc:	"Mark E." <snowball3 AT usa DOT net>, djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: autoconf 2.13 test version available
In-Reply-To:	<Pine.A41.4.05.9901200943160.91566-100000@ieva05.lanet.lv>
Message-ID:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.990120095835.5896B-100000@is>
MIME-Version:	1.0
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com

On Wed, 20 Jan 1999, Andris Pavenis wrote:

> I have not it tested very seriously with LFN=N. Maybe I have something
> else broken with LFN=N as I didn't use NameNumericTail=0 and only
> reinstalled autoconf-2.13 from my binary archive with LFN=N under plain
> DOS

Testing under plain DOS is even better than setting LFN=n on Windows 
(since in the latter case, COMMAND.COM and other Windows programs still 
see the long names).

FWIW, I also think that every person who develops DJGPP programs should 
have NameNumericTail disabled.  In fact, I don't see why anybody should 
avoid disabling numeric tails.

But what I was lamenting was not any specific case, but rather a series 
of ports where people who made them specifically say they don't work 
well, or won't build, without LFN support.  I find this trend disturbing.

- Raw text -