Mail Archives: cygwin/2010/06/09/10:28:52
On Jun 9 08:14, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 06/09/2010 08:08 AM, Andy Koppe wrote:
> >>> More importantly, a lot of build scripts likely depend on the .exe being added automatically.
> >>
> >> Hm. Maybe they shouldn't.
> >
> > Yeah, but "shouldn't" never stopped anyone, hence any transition would
> > certainly not be pain-free.
>
> A first step would be teaching gcc to not append .exe. Many configure
> scripts (certainly almost all scripts based on autoconf) determine
> $(EXEEXT) based on gcc behavior, and will just do the right thing
> throughout the rest of the build with $(EXEEXT) empty (as evidenced by
> their behavior on Linux).
>
> But even with that gcc change, we'd have to keep .exe magic in
> cygwin1.dll until everything in the distro has been rebuilt without an
> .exe suffix.
>
> However, I'm starting to like the idea, if we can get buy-in from the
> gcc packager. Dave?
I seriously doubt the advantages. Cygwin will have to support .exe
for the next couple of years anyway. There are too many applications
out there already using the .exe suffix. There are too many people
out there expecting "foo" to start "foo.exe". There are too many
applications calling stat before exec which will fail. To me this
all is a moot discussion for the very minor benefit to allow a file
"foo" alongside of a file "foo.exe".
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 -