Mail Archives: cygwin/2009/11/05/13:09:07
On Thu, Nov 05, 2009 at 06:34:50PM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>On Nov 5 11:14, Yaakov S wrote:
>> On 05/11/2009 08:44, corinna-rDBXBDvO6BXQT0dZR+AlfA AT public DOT gmane DOT org wrote:
>> >Modified files:
>> > winsup/cygwin : ChangeLog syscalls.cc
>> >
>> >Log message:
>> > * syscalls.cc (nt_path_has_suffix): New function.
>> > (rename): Don't append .exe suffix if binary target name has any suffix
>> > at all.
>> >
>> >Patches:
>> >http://sources.redhat.com/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/src/winsup/cygwin/ChangeLog.diff?cvsroot=src&r1=1.4708&r2=1.4709
>> >http://sources.redhat.com/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/src/winsup/cygwin/syscalls.cc.diff?cvsroot=src&r1=1.543&r2=1.544
>>
>> On my system dozens of executables do have a '.' near the end of
>> their names, either representing a version (e.g. perl5.10.0.exe,
>> python2.5.exe), or OCaml native code (*.opt.exe), or for other
>> reasons (e.g. *.bin.exe where the program is launched via a script).
>> How does this change affect building/installing them?
>
>Let's see:
>
> rename ("foo.exe", "perl5.10.0.exe") result: perl5.10.0.exe
> rename ("foo.exe", "perl5.10.0") result: perl5.10.0
> rename ("foo", "perl5.10.0.exe") result: perl5.10.0.exe
> rename ("foo", "perl5.10.0") result: perl5.10.0
>
>The latter one is a problem, because that's what happens when calling
>
> strip perl5.10.0
>
>so after strip the binary is missing a .exe suffix.
>
>Sigh.
>
>Is there any *reliable* solution to this problem, other than never to
>add a .exe suffix?
Isn't the reliable-but-slow method to check the magic at the beginning
of the file to see if it actually is a .exe? I'm not sure we want to do
that though.
cgf
--
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
- Raw text -