From: "Tim Van Holder" To: "Eli Zaretskii" Cc: Subject: RE: Fetish.pm band-aid (Fileutils testsuite) Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 13:23:02 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal 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 think config.site should come either with djdev or with Bash. The > latter is IMHO preferable, since changes in config.site are mostly > motivated by features supported by the ported Bash. Either is fine; I still think it's logical that config.site is part of at least the autoconf source distrib, as its contents are mostly based on how well autoconf can handle DJGPP, and on how it's implemented (like for 2.49x, where the use of shell here docs in m4 system() calls requires setting SHELL/CONFIG_SHELL to a full path). This config.site would then only include those settings needed for autoconf to work properly on a djgpp system. bash and/or djdev (and I'd lean towards djdev) can then include this config.site, adding those options needed to make configure DTRT on djgpp. For example the 'base' config.site distributed with autoconf would have the settings for SHELL/CONFIG_SHELL and TEST_FINDS_EXE (and optionally PATH), while the djdev one would add settings such as "ac_cv_func_fork=no". I already have a paragraph in autoconf's DJGPP readme that explains the provided config.site should be merged with an existing config.site (if any). > I think Autoconf is a wrong place to distribute this file, since its most > important use is to configure and build other packages, and that > shouldn't require Autoconf to be installed. True, but different versions of autoconf may require different settings. A problem may arise if DJGPP packages start using both autoconf 2.13 and autoconf 2.50 (once that's released); a 2.50-oriented config.site may break autoconf 2.13 and vice versa. So which version should come with bash? Maybe each source package should come with its own config.site... > > PATH="/dev/env/DJDIR/bin;$PATH" > I think this should first test if %DJDIR%/bin is already in $PATH, and if > so, remove it. Otherwise, it is unnecessarily bloating PATH, and can > cause it to overflow, which would make problems if something that uses > config.site needs to go through COMMAND.COM. True - didn't think of that. Problem is that detecting $DJDIR/bin may be non-obvious (might be substed, slashflipped, etc.). This is mostly intended for maintainers anyway; they'd want config.cache files to be portable. For regular DJGPP users this is less important, as their config.cache is only intended for their own system (usually). I'll comment this out and add a statement to that effect.