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
Date:	Sat, 18 Dec 2004 19:59:11 -0500 (EST)
From:	Igor Pechtchanski <pechtcha AT cs DOT nyu DOT edu>
Reply-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
To:	Max Bowsher <maxb AT ukf DOT net>
cc:	"Jeremy C. Reed" <reed AT reedmedia DOT net>, cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: cp and "are the same file"
In-Reply-To:	<0e2201c4e4fb$de9c0e70$5308a8c0@robinson.cam.ac.uk>
Message-ID:	<Pine.GSO.4.61.0412181946421.2298@slinky.cs.nyu.edu>
References:	<Pine DOT LNX DOT 4 DOT 43 DOT 0412171623030 DOT 21256-100000 AT pilchuck DOT reedmedia DOT net> <0e2201c4e4fb$de9c0e70$5308a8c0 AT robinson DOT cam DOT ac DOT uk>
MIME-Version:	1.0

On Sat, 18 Dec 2004, Max Bowsher wrote:

> 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.

IIRC, method 1 (patched directory) packaging was supposed to contain a
reverse patch in the CYGWIN-PATCHES subdirectory...  I can't check at the
moment whether the fileutils package actually does.

> > 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.

That said, I believe the OP didn't request that gcc not produce .exe files
by default, only how can *he* make gcc not produce the .exe suffix.  What
you have to do is add a "." after the output (-o) filename[*].  Some
projects define EXEEXT (or EXESUFFIX), so setting that to "." in yours
could be all you need.
HTH,
	Igor
[*] IOW, this works: 'gcc prog.c -o prog.' produces 'prog', not 'prog.exe'.
-- 
				http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/
      |\      _,,,---,,_		pechtcha AT cs DOT nyu DOT edu
ZZZzz /,`.-'`'    -.  ;-;;,_		igor AT watson DOT ibm DOT com
     |,4-  ) )-,_. ,\ (  `'-'		Igor Pechtchanski, Ph.D.
    '---''(_/--'  `-'\_) fL	a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-.  Meow!

"The Sun will pass between the Earth and the Moon tonight for a total
Lunar eclipse..." -- WCBS Radio Newsbrief, Oct 27 2004, 12:01 pm EDT

--
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 -