Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 19:53:24 +0300
From: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Sender: halo1 AT zahav DOT net DOT il
To: tim DOT van DOT holder AT pandora DOT be, dj AT delorie DOT com
Message-Id: <7263-Thu28Jun2001195324+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, snowball3 AT bigfoot DOT com
In-reply-to: <CAEGKOHJKAAFPKOCLHDIGEOGCEAA.tim.van.holder@pandora.be>
Subject: Re: bash 2.04 build failure?
References:  <CAEGKOHJKAAFPKOCLHDIGEOGCEAA 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: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 15:35:35 +0200
> 
> > > Because I want 'bash autoconf' to run autoconf if it exists, not
> > > autoconf.exe or autoconf.bat.
> >
> > Do you indeed have autoconf.bat or autoconf.exe?
> 
> No, but if they should magically appear, they should not affect 'bash
> autoconf'.

I think if they would appear we would have many problems even before
that.

> Since it's supposed to be a Unixy shell, it should look for
> the exact command given; looking for the command with an added extension
> is a platform-specific addition that should not override standard behaviour.

This is debatable: adding the extension is not done on Unix, so Unix
cannot teach us anything about the Right Way to deal with this.

OTOH, this _is_ a DOS/Windows port, and we do recommend it to users
who come from the DOS/Windows background.  Those users might expect
behavior similar to what they are used to with stock DOS/Windows
shells.

So this should at least be configurable.  Perhaps we need a user
option, or some logic that would DTRT in those situations, if any,
where the Right Way is clear-cut.

DJ, what does the Cygwin port of Bash do?  Or, rather, what does the
Cygwin DLL's routines do when Bash invokes them to run `foo'?  Do they
search for extensions, and if so, for which ones?

> > I don't see anything in your description that is specific to Bash.
> >
> > We've been through this before, and I know that you think dosexec should
> > behave like that in general.  But Mark was saying that the case
> > of Bash was special, and that is what I asked about.
> 
> bash _is_ special; while in general it may be OK for dosexec to behave as
> it does (I don't agree, but that's just me), for bash it isn't OK.

Well, I was asking _why_ isn't it okay.