From: cgf AT cygnus DOT com (Christopher G. Faylor)
Subject: Re: More on relative pathname
14 Jan 1999 14:16:54 GMT
Message-ID: <77ku8m$ocb$1@cronkite.cygnus.com>
References: <8135911A809AD211AF6300A02480D1750348BE AT IIS000 DOT microdata DOT fr> <001d01be3f17$9db783c0$bee2e183 DOT cygnus DOT gnu-win32 AT gtw_nt DOT fnal DOT gov>
X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test63 (15 March 1998)

In article <001d01be3f17$9db783c0$bee2e183 DOT cygnus DOT gnu-win32 AT gtw_nt DOT fnal DOT gov>,
Gordon Watts Brown University <gwatts AT fnal DOT gov> wrote:
>Taking the suggestion of Earnie Boyd, I replaced the #!/bin/sh in my sample
>script with #!/bin/bash. Now the relative path names work fine.
>Unfortunately, I can't make this change in all the code I'm running (this is
>a port with a common source base), so I still need to get sh to work
>correctly, but it is an interesting data point, none the less. Would this
>indicate a problem in sh or in the cygwin dll below it? I guess it depends
>upon how sh invokes sub-shells.

There is a problem with cygwin, #!, and relative paths in PATH.  The
problem should be fixed in recent snapshots.
-- 
cgf AT cygnus DOT com
http://www.cygnus.com/