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 19:05:32 +0200
Message-ID:	<CAEGKOHJKAAFPKOCLHDIAEGHCCAA.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:	<8361-Wed11Apr2001184201+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

> > 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 think so, yes.

> > 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.

I merely based myself on what DJGPP considers executable; I figured that
when typing 'foo' in bash runs foo.pl or foo.sh if found, autoconf should
also consider those when searching for programs.
That said, I'm not opposed to only using .exe (and .bat, I suppose) in the
"official" distributed config.site.  Like you say, it's easy enough for
oddballs like me to tweak config.site to their needs.

- Raw text -