Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 21:02:35 +0300
From: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Sender: halo1 AT zahav DOT net DOT il
To: tim DOT vanholder AT falconsoft DOT be
Message-Id: <7263-Tue24Jul2001210234+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il>
X-Mailer: Emacs 20.6 (via feedmail 8.3.emacs20_6 I) and Blat ver 1.8.9
CC: pjfarley3 AT escape DOT com, djgpp AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to: <CAEGKOHJKAAFPKOCLHDIKEMMCFAA.tim.vanholder@falconsoft.be>
Subject: Re: Which config.site should be used, bash or autoconf 2.50?
References:  <CAEGKOHJKAAFPKOCLHDIKEMMCFAA DOT tim DOT vanholder AT falconsoft DOT be>
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

> From: "Tim Van Holder" <tim DOT vanholder AT falconsoft DOT be>
> Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 18:28:28 +0200
> 
> 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).

So we should for now advise people to stay with config.site from Bash,
unless they need to run only the scripts generated by the ported
Autoconf.  Is that correct?

> > 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

Thanks, this will solve the problem from both sides.

> It's a shame the 2.13->2.50 upgrade isn't very smooth

Indeed.