From: "Laurynas Biveinis" <lauras AT softhome DOT net>
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 18:43:28 +0200
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: bash 2.04 build failure?
Message-ID: <20010628184328.A205@lauras.lt>
Mail-Followup-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
References: <3B39F5BF DOT 260 DOT BC98FD AT localhost> <3B3A1BE0 DOT 22492 DOT 1EA338 AT localhost>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <3B3A1BE0.22492.1EA338@localhost>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.18i
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


> This is because Bash 2.05 uses libc's dosexec.c which will execute "x.bat" 
> even if you told it to run "x". While this is compatible with the way 
> command.com works, it's bad mojo for Bash. So dosexec.c needs to be fixed in 
> a certain way. What that certain way is hasn't been agreed to yet. Perhaps a 
> flag to disable this behavior?

To sum up everything:
1) libc dosexec.c is compatible with command.com
2) bash needs dosexec.c compatible with unix.
3) Including own copy of dosexec.c for bash is PITA - multiple
djdev versions etc, so bash has to live with libc dosexec.c
4) In this case IMO a new startup flag is the best solution.

What do you think?

Laurynas