Mail Archives: cygwin/2010/06/08/12:21:43
On Jun 8 12:09, RISINGP1 AT nationwide DOT com wrote:
> >On 06/08/2010 09:42 AM, RISINGP1 AT nationwide DOT com wrote:
> >> As to the "cp" issue, while IMHO, it should go ahead and do the copy,
> >> a more instructive error message would be helpful:
> >>
> >> cp: cannot create regular file `my': File 'my.exe' exists
> >
> >Huh? Do the copy, then give a failure message? No. A failure message
> >should only occur if the copy failed.
> >
> >Did you mean "continue to fail, but make the failure message more
> >friendly?" If so:
> >Patches to coreutils welcome. But be aware that this error message uses
> >the equivalent of perror(), where EEXIST would not have quite that
> >wording. In other words, such a patch would be pretty invasive, to
> >recognize the exact errno value that cygwin1.dll returns in this
> >particular failure-to-create case, then massaging just that error case
> >into your desired message, so I probably won't be writing the patch any
> >time soon (I've got higher-priority things on my plate at the moment).
> >
> >Or did you mean "change it to succeed, in spite of the naming conflict",
> >in which case there is no failure message and nothing to patch in
> coreutils.
> >
> >--
> >Eric Blake eblake AT redhat DOT com +1-801-349-2682
> >Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org
> >
>
> Eric -
>
> Sorry for the confusion. I understand how it arose.
>
> What I meant:
>
> 1) IMHO, "cp" should do the copy. Also, IMHO, there is no naming
> conflict;
> "foo" and "foo.exe" are not the same name. (I come from a long UNIX
> background.) No error message should be issued.
There is. "foo" can mean "foo". or "foo.lnk", or "foo.exe". Cygwin is
handling all these names as being the same file. If you stat("foo")
Cygwin will return data for "foo.exe" if it exists. If you try to start
an executable "foo", and only "foo.exe" exists, you want to start
"foo.exe" rather than getting a "file not found" message, I assume.
Along the same lines a file "foo" would hide the file "foo.exe" and
there would be no way for you to access it as "foo". That's not
desired. Therefore, the transparency of handling "foo", "foo.exe" and
"foo.lnk" as the same file comes with a price.
Corinna
--
Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat
--
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 -