Date: Thu, 3 Jul 1997 17:54:17 +0300 (IDT)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
To: Robert Hoehne <robert DOT hoehne AT mathematik DOT tu-chemnitz DOT de>
cc: Molnar Laszlo <molnarl AT cdata DOT tvnet DOT hu>, djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: Memory leak in bash
In-Reply-To: <Pine.HPP.3.95q.970702163418.8579B-100000@newton.mathematik.tu-chemnitz.de>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.970703175050.1458A-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Precedence: bulk


On Wed, 2 Jul 1997, Robert Hoehne wrote:

> There are also other things I don't understand. For instance
> why they are using such an exotic configuartion script
> instead one produced by autoconf?

It seems Perl people do many things in exotic ways.  For example, during 
the pretest of the last version of `patch', their patch procedures were 
broken many times, and Paul Eggert (who maintains `patch' these days) 
needed to make many changes to cope with their practices.  As far as I 
understood from the discussions, they used almost every trick in the book 
that assumed specific quirks of `patch' 2.1 in guessing which file to 
patch.