Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 12:20:31 +0200 (IST) From: Eli Zaretskii X-Sender: eliz AT is To: Ian Chapman cc: djgpp AT delorie DOT com Subject: Re: Bash sh In-Reply-To: <3884AB4D.DC19E66D@nortelnetworks.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com Errors-To: dj-admin AT delorie DOT com X-Mailing-List: djgpp AT delorie DOT com X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com Precedence: bulk On Tue, 18 Jan 2000, Ian Chapman wrote: > First they do not seem to be executable. Please explain what do you mean by that. DOS/Windows filesystems don't have the execute bit in the file's attributes. DJGPP library functions consider a file executable if (among other possibilities) it has the telltale "#! /bin/sh" string on its first line. But even if there's no such line, I don't think the ported Bash would mind (although I didn't test that right now). What exactly happens when the scripts do NOT run? Error messages? Crashes? Please describe this. > However, they do run some of the time. I think if I look at them with > less after that the system seems to know what they are. This sounds like a black magic to me. How come viewing a file with Less suddenly changes how the filesystem treats it? On what OS did you see this? > Second I thought that these were a > wee bit like .bat files once the header was set up all you needed on the > second etc. lines was:- > my_prog my_data > however, it can not find my_prog which is in ~/bin. Is "~/bin" in your PATH?