From: "Laurynas Biveinis" <lauras AT softhome DOT net>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 17:43:20 +0200
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Cc: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: bash 2.04 build failure?
Message-ID: <20010629174320.B659@lauras.lt>
Mail-Followup-To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>,
	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
References: <3395-Wed20Jun2001200621+0300-eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il> <3B3890D8 DOT 12023 DOT 1A6E91 AT localhost> <20010628184544 DOT B205 AT lauras DOT lt> <20010629142627 DOT B205 AT lauras DOT lt> <968-Fri29Jun2001173854+0300-eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <968-Fri29Jun2001173854+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il>
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 a real-life example for Eli, why current libc dosexec.c is harmful
> > for bash.
> 
> I think I know there are situations when extension search gets in the
> way, even without additional examples ;-)
 
Never mind, then, I just recall your posting earlier there asking why
it is harmful.

Laurynas