Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 12:36:42 +0200
From: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Sender: halo1 AT zahav DOT net DOT il
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Message-Id: <9743-Sat06Jan2001123641+0200-eliz@is.elta.co.il>
X-Mailer: Emacs 20.6 (via feedmail 8.3.emacs20_6 I) and Blat ver 1.8.6
In-reply-to: <Xns9020DCBDF386sxmydejacom@130.133.1.4>
Subject: Re: bash 2.04
References:  <Xns9020DCBDF386sxmydejacom AT 130 DOT 133 DOT 1 DOT 4>
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

> From: 386sx AT my-deja DOT com (386sx)
> Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
> Date: 6 Jan 2001 01:42:25 GMT
> 
> My bash 2.04 won't recognize .sh files as executable from the command line 
> unless I append the ".sh". 
> i.e. "rundos" won't work, but "rundos.sh" works.

Probably because this Bash port was built with the development version
of the library, where .sh (and a few other extensions) were
deliberately excluded from the executable file search.

The reason for this exclusion is that when you have both `foo' and
`foo.sh' in the same directory, and you say "./foo", you want Bash to
run `foo', not `foo.sh'.

The library (and thus Bash) does make exception for the DOS standard
extensions .exe, .com, .bat, and .btm, but only because the stock
shells behave like that.