Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com Message-Id: <4.3.1.2.20010927092642.0248f158@pop.ma.ultranet.com> X-Sender: lhall AT pop DOT ma DOT ultranet DOT com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1 Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 09:30:50 -0400 To: Peter Buckley , "Karr, David" , cygwin AT cygwin DOT com From: "Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc)" Subject: Re: Slightly different interpretation of $PATH between Bash and Perl In-Reply-To: <3BB32564.F092C68@cportcorp.com> References: <2C08D4EECBDED41184BB00D0B74733420473F0CD AT cf-bay-exch-03 DOT cacheflow DOT com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 09:11 AM 9/27/2001, Peter Buckley wrote: >I don't remember if it is recommended, but I have heard people say that >you can make a copy of bash.exe and rename it to sh.exe and delete or >rename the old sh.exe so perl and make will use bash instead of ash. It's not recommended to replace sh.exe (ash) with bash.exe. The main reason is that bash is slower than ash, which is important for configures. Also, anyone who does replace sh.exe with bash.exe will see it changed back to ash when upgrading via setup. A better solution might be to invoke bash in the system() call for perl if bash is what's required for the script. Another alternative is to modify the script to be ash (i.e. Bourne shell) compatible. Larry Hall lhall AT rfk DOT com RFK Partners, Inc. http://www.rfk.com 118 Washington Street (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office Holliston, MA 01746 (508) 893-9889 - FAX -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/