Mail Archives: djgpp-workers/2001/06/28/10:06:51
> > 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?
No, but if they should magically appear, they should not affect 'bash
autoconf'. Since it's supposed to be a Unixy shell, it should look for
the exact command given; looking for the command with an added extension
is a platform-specific addition that should not override standard behaviour.
> > 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.
bash _is_ special; while in general it may be OK for dosexec to behave as
it does (I don't agree, but that's just me), for bash it isn't OK.
IIRC the current dosexec was designed to emulate command.com's rules
as closely as possible; I see no good reason why bash should emulate
command.com.
> Tough. The same would happen if you have a VMS script under the name of
> `configure' or `autoconf'.
Looking at the sources for dosexec, that doesn't seem to be the case.
'.com'
is handled by direct_exec (KABOOM!); '' is handled by go32_exec, which would
not recognize the file as an executable and hand it off to
__dosexec_command_exec. command.com would then likely complain that the
file
is an unknown command.
- Raw text -