Date:	Thu, 28 Jun 2001 15:47:32 +0300 (IDT)
From:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender:	eliz AT is
To:	Tim Van Holder <tim DOT van DOT holder AT pandora DOT be>
cc:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com, "Mark E." <snowball3 AT bigfoot DOT com>
Subject:	Re: bash 2.04 build failure?
In-Reply-To:	<CAEGKOHJKAAFPKOCLHDIGEOECEAA.tim.van.holder@pandora.be>
Message-ID:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.1010628154428.13433F-100000@is>
MIME-Version:	1.0
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

On Thu, 28 Jun 2001, Tim Van Holder wrote:

> > > 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.
> > 
> > Why is it a bad mojo for Bash?
> 
> Because I want 'bash autoconf' to run autoconf if it exists, not
> autoconf.exe or autoconf.bat.

Do you indeed have autoconf.bat or autoconf.exe?

> I expect it to check for an extensionless
> file first; after that, it should try extensions in the same order
> command.com would, followed by any other extensions we support.

I don't see anything in your description that is specific to Bash.

We've been through this before, and I know that you think dosexec should 
behave like that in general.  But Mark was saying that the case of Bash was 
special, and that is what I asked about.

> If '.com' is checked before '', it's even worse.  Several GNU packages
> come with VMS .com scripts, so bash would blow up the system if you tried
> to run ./configure if there's also a configure.com.

Tough.  The same would happen if you have a VMS script under the name of 
`configure' or `autoconf'.

- Raw text -