From:	"Tim Van Holder" <tim DOT van DOT holder AT pandora DOT be>
To:	<djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com>
Subject:	Re: New bash 2.04 beta release
Date:	Wed, 11 Apr 2001 15:32:52 +0200
Message-ID:	<CAEGKOHJKAAFPKOCLHDIMEGACCAA.tim.van.holder@pandora.be>
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-Priority:	3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority:	Normal
X-Mailer:	Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
In-Reply-To:	<6480-Wed11Apr2001122553+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il>
X-MimeOLE:	Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
Importance:	Normal
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

> Then perhaps the list of executable extensions is too large.  Why do
> we need anything beyond just .exe?  Do we _really_ want to find gcc.sh
> or gcc.pl?
Basically, I just took the list I remembered libc using to determine
executability.  For most programs, .exe will be enough.  But some
frequently-used GNU packages are shell or Perl scripts (autoconf, automake,
groff's troff wrapper and help2man are all good examples).  I have these
as .sh and .pl so I can run them both from bash and 4dos.com, and I'm sure
at least some other people do the same. So looking for those is definitely
a good idea IMHO.  Maybe dropping .com would be a good idea (to avoid
accidentally getting a VMS .com script from a build tree).

- Raw text -