Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 08:53:11 +0300
From: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Sender: halo1 AT zahav DOT net DOT il
To: dj AT delorie DOT com
Message-Id: <7458-Fri29Jun2001085311+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il>
X-Mailer: Emacs 20.6 (via feedmail 8.3.emacs20_6 I) and Blat ver 1.8.9
CC: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to: <200106281933.PAA12602@envy.delorie.com> (message from DJ Delorie
	on Thu, 28 Jun 2001 15:33:14 -0400)
Subject: Re: bash 2.04 build failure?
References: <CAEGKOHJKAAFPKOCLHDIGEOGCEAA DOT tim DOT van DOT holder AT pandora DOT be> <7263-Thu28Jun2001195324+0300-eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il> <200106281712 DOT NAA11355 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com> <7704-Thu28Jun2001222008+0300-eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il> <200106281933 DOT PAA12602 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com>
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

> Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 15:33:14 -0400
> From: DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com>
> 
> > Sounds a lot like what we do.  Should we change that to match this
> > more closely?
> 
> Why?

So that whatever is done in GNU packages to accomodate one of these
ports (wrt the .exe extension) will also do for the other.

In any case, if the current behavior doesn't seem right, what the
Cygwin port does surely is more relevant than what the original Unix
shell does.