Date:	Wed, 11 Apr 2001 18:42:02 +0300
From:	"Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Sender:	halo1 AT zahav DOT net DOT il
To:	"Tim Van Holder" <tim DOT van DOT holder AT pandora DOT be>
Message-Id:	<8361-Wed11Apr2001184201+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il>
X-Mailer:	Emacs 20.6 (via feedmail 8.3.emacs20_6 I) and Blat ver 1.8.9
CC:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to:	<CAEGKOHJKAAFPKOCLHDIMEGACCAA.tim.van.holder@pandora.be>
Subject:	Re: New bash 2.04 beta release
References:	<CAEGKOHJKAAFPKOCLHDIMEGACCAA DOT tim DOT van DOT holder AT pandora DOT be>
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

> From: "Tim Van Holder" <tim DOT van DOT holder AT pandora DOT be>
> Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 15:32:52 +0200
> 
> 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).

Do these scripts indeed have extensions?  IIRC, the name of the
Autoconf script is simply `autoconf', not `autoconf.pl', no?

> 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.

If these files are renamed by a small number of people, we shouldn't
burden the others with those extensions.  config.site can be edited by
people who have special setup.

- Raw text -