Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 13:23:02 +0200 (IST)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: Tim Van Holder <tim DOT van DOT holder AT pandora DOT be>
cc: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: RE: Fetish.pm band-aid (Fileutils testsuite)
In-Reply-To: <CAEGKOHJKAAFPKOCLHDIIEFJCBAA.tim.van.holder@pandora.be>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1010311131837.13811E@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk


On Wed, 7 Mar 2001, Tim Van Holder wrote:

> > Will the DJGPP port of autoconf 2.50 ship with config.site? Or is it
> > "owned" by the bash distribution at the moment? Will the bash 2.04
> > distribution need updating once autoconf 2.50 is out with a new
> > config.site?
> I plan to include a config.site with autoconf 2.50.

I think config.site should come either with djdev or with Bash.  The 
latter is IMHO preferable, since changes in config.site are mostly 
motivated by features supported by the ported Bash.

I think Autoconf is a wrong place to distribute this file, since its most 
important use is to configure and build other packages, and that 
shouldn't require Autoconf to be installed.

> # By using this, results of configure's program checks will be more portable
> PATH="/dev/env/DJDIR/bin;$PATH"

I think this should first test if %DJDIR%/bin is already in $PATH, and if 
so, remove it.  Otherwise, it is unnecessarily bloating PATH, and can 
cause it to overflow, which would make problems if something that uses 
config.site needs to go through COMMAND.COM.