Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Message-ID:	<0e2201c4e4fb$de9c0e70$5308a8c0@robinson.cam.ac.uk>
From:	"Max Bowsher" <maxb AT ukf DOT net>
To:	"Jeremy C. Reed" <reed AT reedmedia DOT net>, <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
References:	<Pine DOT LNX DOT 4 DOT 43 DOT 0412171623030 DOT 21256-100000 AT pilchuck DOT reedmedia DOT net>
Subject:	Re: cp and "are the same file"
Date:	Sat, 18 Dec 2004 12:19:31 -0000
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-IsSubscribed:	yes

Jeremy C. Reed wrote:
> I read messages about this from others in various list archives.
>
> I am using cygwin. uname -a tells me:
> CYGWIN_NT-5.1 myhost 1.5.12(0.116/4/2) 2004-11-10 08:34 i686 unknown
> unknown Cygwin
>
> /etc/setup/installed.db says I have fileutils-4.1-2.tar.bz2
>
> cp --version says I have:
> cp (fileutils) 4.1
>
> http://www.cygwin.com/packages/fileutils/ seems to indicate I have the
> newest version. Is there a patch against the official fileutils (before
> coreutils) or do I need to do it myself to see the changes?

Unfortunately, yes, you have to diff against the original in this case.

Most Cygwin packages have migrated to a 
buildscriptscript+patch+original_tarball format, but not this one.

> Anyways, I want to cp to magically see the .exe and copy correctly.
>
> Example of error:
>
> cp: `/home/jreed/tmp/bmake/bmake' and `/home/jreed/pkg/bin/bmake' are the
> same file
>
> "are the same file" is the wrong message.
>
...
>
> I am hoping to just improve cp to do the right thing versus fixing
> numerous places that use it.

That would make sense.

I believe there is some (slow) on-going work to change to coreutils - ask on 
this mailing list before you spend time patching the old fileutils.

> Or maybe I can get gcc to stop saving with ".exe" suffix. It appears I
> don't need ".exe" for my executables to work. Any ideas on how to get gcc
> to not automatically append an ".exe".

The suffix is required on Win9x, AFAIK, so this is not a viable route.

Max.


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

- Raw text -