From: sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu (Charles Sandmann)
Message-Id: <10301120355.AA22010@clio.rice.edu>
Subject: Re: Quirk with command.com shell on XP
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2003 21:55:16 -0600 (CST)
In-Reply-To: <005601c2b945$cb929b20$0100a8c0@acp42g> from "Andrew Cottrell" at Jan 11, 2003 06:47:29 PM
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL2]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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

> There are a few different ways of doing it on W2K/XP and this may not be the
> one that we want in the FAQ as it does make it effectivly a global setting.
> For most workers and package port maintainers when they move to 2K/XP will
> eventually get stuck like I did and I would rather thme not re-install XP
> just to find that if it was in the FAQ or somewhere else then could have
> saved allot of time.
> 
> The bottom line is that I do not wish anyone to go through the process I did
> to find and resolve this problem.

I use CMD.EXE exclusively (whenever I've had to use command.com I've found
some problem that needed to be fixed anyway) - and I've never seen any 
problems.  Given the enhanced capabilities of CMD.EXE, why not recommend
using it instead?

The items I've found to be a good idea are to trim the path and trim the
environment when working with all DOS applications from the command line,
DJGPP included.  My recent setup on a new box was caused by me ignoring
my own setup experiences...