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 |