Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 18:42:02 +0300
From: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Sender: halo1 AT zahav DOT net DOT il
To: "Tim Van Holder" <tim DOT van DOT holder AT pandora DOT be>
Message-Id: <8361-Wed11Apr2001184201+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: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to: <CAEGKOHJKAAFPKOCLHDIMEGACCAA.tim.van.holder@pandora.be>
Subject: Re: New bash 2.04 beta release
References:  <CAEGKOHJKAAFPKOCLHDIMEGACCAA DOT tim DOT van DOT holder AT pandora DOT be>
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

> From: "Tim Van Holder" <tim DOT van DOT holder AT pandora DOT be>
> Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 15:32:52 +0200
> 
> For most programs, .exe will be enough.  But some
> frequently-used GNU packages are shell or Perl scripts (autoconf, automake,
> groff's troff wrapper and help2man are all good examples).

Do these scripts indeed have extensions?  IIRC, the name of the
Autoconf script is simply `autoconf', not `autoconf.pl', no?

> I have these as .sh and .pl so I can run them both from bash and
> 4dos.com, and I'm sure at least some other people do the same.

If these files are renamed by a small number of people, we shouldn't
burden the others with those extensions.  config.site can be edited by
people who have special setup.