From: "Tim Van Holder" <tim DOT vanholder AT falconsoft DOT be>
To: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Cc: <pjfarley3 AT escape DOT com>, <djgpp AT delorie DOT com>
Subject: Re: Which config.site should be used, bash or autoconf 2.50?
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 18:28:28 +0200
Message-ID: <CAEGKOHJKAAFPKOCLHDIKEMMCFAA.tim.vanholder@falconsoft.be>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
In-Reply-To: <3405-Tue24Jul2001191039+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il>
Importance: Normal
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

> Are you saying that config.site in the Autoconf distribution can be
> used with configure scripts generated by the ported Autoconf, but not
> with configure scripts generated on Unix?  And that config.site
> distributed with Bash will not work with configure scripts generated
> by the ported Autoconf?  I.e. these two files are incompatible?

Yes and no.  The config.site that comes with 2.50 will indeed not work
with Unix-generated and/or old configure scripts (no TEST_FINDS_EXE, as
the new exec. ext searching system obsoletes it).
But the old config.site should work just fine with 2.50-generated scripts
(it will rely on TEST_FINDS_EXE to find executables, so it'll find
$DJDIR/foo instead of $DJDIR/foo.sh, which is not a problem unless
a $DJDIR/foo.exe is introduced as well).

> If that's indeed so, I think it's not a Good Thing.  People should be
> able to install one of these two versions of config.site and be able
> to run configure scripts provided by source packages without a fuss.

Fine - I'll re-add TEST_FINDS_EXE to the config.site for 2.52 (the
DJGPP package for 2.52 is currently delayed due to an as-yet-unresolved
problem with autoupdate; quite possibly there will be no 2.52 package
for DJGPP).  It's a shame the 2.13->2.50 upgrade isn't very smooth;
otherwise, it would be easy enough to require people to regenerate the
configure scripts they want to run if they install 2.50.