From:	"Tim Van Holder" <tim DOT van DOT holder AT pandora DOT be>
To:	<djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com>, "Mark E." <snowball3 AT bigfoot DOT com>
Subject:	Re: bash 2.04 build failure?
Date:	Thu, 28 Jun 2001 14:14:08 +0200
Message-ID:	<CAEGKOHJKAAFPKOCLHDIGEOECEAA.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)
X-MIMEOLE:	Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
Importance:	Normal
In-Reply-To:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.1010628133025.12284J-100000@is>
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

> > This is because Bash 2.05 uses libc's dosexec.c which will 
> execute "x.bat" 
> > even if you told it to run "x". While this is compatible with the way 
> > command.com works, it's bad mojo for Bash.
> 
> Why is it a bad mojo for Bash?

Because I want 'bash autoconf' to run autoconf if it exists, not
autoconf.exe or autoconf.bat.  I expect it to check for an extensionless
file first; after that, it should try extensions in the same order
command.com would, followed by any other extensions we support.

If '.com' is checked before '', it's even worse.  Several GNU packages
come with VMS .com scripts, so bash would blow up the system if you tried
to run ./configure if there's also a configure.com.

- Raw text -