Date:	Sun, 07 Jan 2001 20:25:08 +0200
From:	"Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Sender:	halo1 AT zahav DOT net DOT il
To:	tim DOT van DOT holder AT pandora DOT be
Message-Id:	<2950-Sun07Jan2001202507+0200-eliz@is.elta.co.il>
X-Mailer:	Emacs 20.6 (via feedmail 8.3.emacs20_6 I) and Blat ver 1.8.6
CC:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to:	<NEBBIOJNGMKPNOBKHCGHCEGKCAAA.tim.van.holder@pandora.be>
Subject:	Re: .sh etc. as executable extensions
References:	<NEBBIOJNGMKPNOBKHCGHCEGKCAAA 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: Sun, 7 Jan 2001 10:58:00 +0100
> 
> I took a look at src/libc/dos/process/dosexec and it would seem there
> is no such problem after all; .sh and friends simply aren't tried BEFORE
> an extensionless file.

Yes.  I thought you were actually experiencing problems with foo.sh,
that's why I was surprised.

> (and Eli, you might want
> to amend that entry in wc204.txi, as it's __spawnve, and not
> __dosexc_find_on_path that skips interpreted extensions).

Yes, thanks for pointing this out.

However, it doesn't seem to be right to have __dosexec_find_on_path
and __spawnve behave differently in this regard, especially since
(IIRC) Mark wanted __dosexec_find_on_path to be changed in the first
place.

As far as I could tell from the djgpp-workers archives,
__dosexec_find_on_path wasn't changed because Bash didn't need that.
But perhaps we should change it anyway.

- Raw text -