Mail Archives: cygwin/2000/03/26/18:10:49
On Sun, Mar 26, 2000 at 03:02:29PM -0800, Rick Rankin wrote:
>I wasn't necessarily saying that it is the "wrong" solution, just that it needs
>to be considered carefully. I wasn't aware that other POSIX layers (I assume
>you are referring to UWIN or similar) have sucessfully implemented a similar
>feature. I haven't thought it through, but on the surface, it does seem that it
>could solve many compatability issues.
I didn't mean to sound like I was criticizing your opinion. I guess I run that
risk if I "quote" too many "things", like I did "below", though.
I've had wildly different opinions about this over the years, so I can easily
argue either side. :-)
>If you decide to implement it, should it be selectable via, for example, a
>CYGWIN environment variable setting?
I guess we could do this. This is YA thing where my opinion has evolved
over the years. Geoff Noer and I used to disagree about implementing
more CYGWIN options. Geoff thought that it was a good idea to be very
conservative about adding new options and I thought that it didn't
really matter.
These days, I agree with Geoff. I don't know if his opinion has similarly
reversed or not, though. My main reason for limiting options is that it
makes support a little harder.
Anyway, that said, it is worth considering an option.
Christopher Faylor
Cygwin Engineering Manager
Cygnus Solutions, a Red Hat company
>--- Chris Faylor <cgf AT cygnus DOT com> wrote:
>>On Sat, Mar 25, 2000 at 08:13:08PM -0800, Rick Rankin wrote:
>>>It seems like most of the problems you refered to are related to make
>>>and/or install. Wouldn't it be better to "fix" these programs than to
>>>build something like this into the core?
>>
>>The problem is already "fixed" in install but that doesn't "fix" the
>>problem for packages that don't use "install".
>>
>>So, the only other alternative is to modify, cp and mv. I guess we
>>could also change every open in make but I don't think that's the right
>>solution.
>>
>>Other POSIX-over-Windows packages seem to default to finding a ".exe".
>>I don't think this would be too burdensome, myself.
>>
>>>--- Chris Faylor <cgf AT cygnus DOT com> wrote:
>>>>I wonder if it would really be a big deal if cygwin, by default, found
>>>>a file "foo.exe" if there was no existing file "foo".
>>>>
>>>>We keep running into this problem and I wonder if implementing this in
>>>>cygwin would solve more problems than it causes.
--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
- Raw text -