From: "Laurynas Biveinis" <lauras AT softhome DOT net>
Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2001 12:17:23 +0200
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Cc: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: Bug & fix for Bash 2.05
Message-ID: <20010701121723.B211@lauras.lt>
Mail-Followup-To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>,
	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
References: <Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 1010701113418 DOT 20826L-100000 AT is>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1010701113418.20826L-100000@is>
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


> I still don't have a clear picture of what we want to do.  

Neither I do.

> It looks like 
> some of the requirements for changes posted in this thread are 
> contradictory (e.g., the extensionless executable/script case).
> 
> It would be nice to know where are we heading before coding.

OK, so let's try to define it without actually knowing it :) - since
most people seem to be happy about bash 2.04 behaviour, let's look
what dosexec.c in its sources does differently, and incorporate relevant
parts of it into libc dosexec.c. Under control of runtime flag, of course.

Laurynas