From: "Laurynas Biveinis" <lauras AT softhome DOT net>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 17:52:57 +0200
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Cc: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: bash 2.04 build failure?
Message-ID: <20010629175257.D659@lauras.lt>
Mail-Followup-To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>,
	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
References: <Pine DOT LNX DOT 4 DOT 10 DOT 10106291114150 DOT 20259-100000 AT acp3bf> <20010629142316 DOT A205 AT lauras DOT lt> <6503-Fri29Jun2001175720+0300-eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <6503-Fri29Jun2001175720+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.18i
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


> Could we please have a description of what you think you everybody
> agrees to, before you start coding?  There were lots of opinions and
> suggestions in this thread, and I'm not sure to what we all agreed...

I want to make run-time switch in dosexec.c between 2.03 and 2.04 behaviour
there. IMHO no matter what we decide, this will have to be done in any
case.

> As an example, everybody seemed to be talking about shell scripts
> without extensions, but no one mentioned the other extensionless case:
> the raw COFF image.  Please note that in general we would like to
> avoid running the raw image when there's a .exe program in the same
> place, because the raw image is run via go32-v2.

I wanted to see how 2.03 handled all these issues. I don't have that code
yet, but I will soon.

Laurynas