Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 10:54:22 +0300 (IDT)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: "Mark E." <snowball3 AT bigfoot DOT com>
cc: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: config.site review request
In-Reply-To: <199907201501.PAA167196@out2.ibm.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.990721105227.7757E-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk


On Tue, 20 Jul 1999, Mark E. wrote:

> If someone compiles their own Bash with djdev 202 or 201, then the
> '/dev/env/' feature won't work which means the default prefix needs
> to be set to the not-as-good "\${DJDIR}".

Would Bash 2.03 even compile and work correctly with stock DJGPP
v2.02 or earlier?

Even if it does, do we really want to deprive users of building with
/dev/env/DJDIR as the prefix for the sake of those rare cases where a
new Bash is compiled with an obsolete libc?  The /dev/env
functionality was introduced to defer the resolution of pathnames to
run time, so this test seems to defeat at least some of that purpose.

Anyway, it's not like this is a big deal, one way or the other.