On Wed, 21 Jun 2000, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> The only difference between "./configure" and ". ./configure"
> is that the latter works even if ./configure has no executable permissions
> set. So maybe it's a permissicon problem, it certainly has nothing to do
> with having . in $PATH or your choice of shells.
Not exactly important, but a minor nit. "sh ./configure" would be
preferable to ". ./configure:", no? ". ./configure" could change the
environment or current working directory, whereas the first wouldn't have
that potential problem.
