From: Martin Str|mberg <ams AT ludd DOT luth DOT se>
Message-Id: <199905241153.NAA26425@father.ludd.luth.se>
Subject: Re: #!/bin/sh and not LFN
To: eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il (Eli Zaretskii)
Date: Mon, 24 May 1999 13:53:16 +0200 (MET DST)
Cc: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com (DJGPP-WORKERS)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.91.990524115612.14456H-100000@is> from Eli Zaretskii at "May 24, 99 11:56:31 am"
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL15 (25)]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

According to Eli Zaretskii:
> Are you saying that without LFN=n the thing does work?

Ooops! You're right.

> I don't think the first line of config.sub is the cause of this
> problem.  Unfortunately, I don't have time to download the Bash
> sources and look at the scripts.  So please post the fragment around
> the place where configure runs ./support/config.sub.  I suspect that
> it does something like "/bin/sh ./support/config.sub", and that's why
> it fails.

Yes, it's using "${CONFIG_SHELL-/bin/sh}", and as CONFIG_SHELL is
never set it uses "/bin/sh".

Is CONFIG_SHELL shell something that should be set (from the
perspectives a normal bash user and a developing bash user)?


Right,

							MartinS