Date:	Sun, 7 Sep 1997 13:39:00 +0300 (IDT)
From:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
To:	"Peter J. Farley III" <pjfarley AT dorsai DOT org>
cc:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: Suggestion for future DJGPP development -- depend on bash
In-Reply-To:	<340cd19f.6787527@snews.zippo.com>
Message-ID:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.970907133317.2248Q-100000@is>
MIME-Version:	1.0

On Wed, 3 Sep 1997, Peter J. Farley III wrote:

> The advantages are obvious:  The unix configuration scripts can all be
> made compatible and operable with DJGPP bash, which is a much easier
> job than trying to duplicate them in bat files, and (all?) LFN issues
> can be assumed to be addressed by the pre-existing bash environment.

I fail to see how using Bash will resolve LFN-related problems.  These 
are two different issues.  Filenames like Makefile.in.in will always fail 
on plain DOS, no matter which shell do you use, because such names are 
simply illegal on DOS.  Every file-related DOS system call fails when you 
feed it with such a name.

> I can't think of any disadvantages, but my experience is admitedly
> limited.  I'm open to further rational discussion of any you can
> envision.

One obvious disadvantage is that whoever needs to build a package has a 
whole slew of utilities to install on their machine.

I'm not telling that this disadvantage is prohibitive (the fact is that 
most of the latest ports I've done used Bash and the original configure 
scripts), but we shouldn't forget it nevertheless.

- Raw text -