| delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi | search |
| X-Recipient: | archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com |
| X-SWARE-Spam-Status: | No, hits=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SARE_FREE_WEBM_LAPOSTE,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD,T_TO_NO_BRKTS_FREEMAIL |
| X-Spam-Check-By: | sourceware.org |
| Message-ID: | <4C294340.1010907@laposte.net> |
| Date: | Tue, 29 Jun 2010 02:50:08 +0200 |
| From: | Cyrille Lefevre <cyrille DOT lefevre-lists AT laposte DOT net> |
| User-Agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; fr; rv:1.8.1.3) Gecko/20070326 Thunderbird/2.0.0.0 Mnenhy/0.7.5.666 |
| MIME-Version: | 1.0 |
| To: | cygwin AT cygwin DOT com |
| Subject: | Re: Regression in .exe extension handling |
| References: | <1277766496 DOT 7412 DOT 18 DOT camel AT YAAKOV04> <4C292D35 DOT 6000005 AT redhat DOT com> |
| In-Reply-To: | <4C292D35.6000005@redhat.com> |
| X-me-spamlevel: | not-spam |
| X-me-spamrating: | 34.799999 |
| X-me-spamcause: | OK, (-130)(0000)gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrvdelhedrtdehucetggdotefuucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuoehnohhnvgeqnecuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecuucdlqddutddtmdenthhhvgcuphhrohgslhgvmhculddqfedtmd |
| X-IsSubscribed: | yes |
| Mailing-List: | contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm |
| List-Id: | <cygwin.cygwin.com> |
| 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 |
Le 29/06/2010 01:16, Eric Blake a =C3=A9crit :
> On 06/28/2010 05:08 PM, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
>> It is not unusual for mono packages to create a wrapper script (to be
>> installed in PATH) in the same directory as an assembly (which has .exe
>> suffix and is installed out of PATH), which uncovered a regression using
>> the 20100622 snapshot:
>>
>> echo script> foo
>> echo executable> foo.exe
>> mkdir bar
>> install foo bar/foo
>
> The problem is here - should install be open()ing "foo" (the script) or
> "foo.exe" (the executable) as the source file for copying into bar/foo?
well, how about the use of the O_BINARY flag to make the decision ?
if both files exists and O_BINARY is specified, open the .exe one,
the other one otherwise ?
> Since it is never a good idea to have both an .exe and a script of the
> same name in the same directory, is this really a regression, or just
why? many scripts use this assertion, they usually are called=20
wrappers... :-)
> bad behavior on mono's part? Remember, libtool was recently changed to
> avoid exactly this ambiguity. Or should I be trying to patch coreutils
> (and/or someone patch cygwin1.dll) to try harder to open the script
> instead of the .exe when the suffix-less file conflicts with the .exe?
easy for reading (':' or '#!', rem, etc. :-), does "file" is implemented=20
as part of the cygwin1.dll. not so easy for writing...
Regards,
Cyrille Lefevre
--=20
mailto:Cyrille DOT Lefevre-lists AT laposte DOT net
--
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
| webmaster | delorie software privacy |
| Copyright © 2019 by DJ Delorie | Updated Jul 2019 |