Date:	Thu, 20 Sep 2001 17:41:43 +0200 (IST)
From:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender:	eliz AT is
To:	Wojciech Galazka <wojciech DOT galazka AT polkomtel DOT com DOT pl>
cc:	"'djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com'" <djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com>
Subject:	Re: W2K error message documentation
In-Reply-To:	<250B3114DA16D511B82C00E0094005F8023FC192@MSGWAW11>
Message-ID:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.1010920173729.7799A-100000@is>
MIME-Version:	1.0
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

On Thu, 20 Sep 2001, Wojciech Galazka wrote:

> > If there's no LFN support in COMMAND.COM, various config.bat files
> > will start failing in mysterious ways, because they generally assume
> > that LFN is supported in the same way by the shell and by DJGPP
> > programs.  In that case, I think we will have to figure out a way to
> > run cmd.exe on such systems.
> 
> Could you check the effects of the following below:
> 
> NTCMDPROMPT

Are you saying that with this trick, even if Make invokes
"command.com /c ..." explicitly, Windows will run cmd instead?
I'd be surprised if it did.

The original problem was with a Makefile that invoked command.com
like shown above.  That Makefile does that because the command
it wants to run is non-portable to other shells.

When I said that we will need to find a way to run cmd on those
systems, I meant the following: we need a method to detect such
a system from the Makefile, and then run "cmd.exe /c ..." instead
of "command.com /c ...".

- Raw text -