X-Recipient:	archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
X-SWARE-Spam-Status:	No, hits=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_YE
X-Spam-Check-By:	sourceware.org
X-Mail-Handler:	Dyn Standard SMTP by Dyn
X-Report-Abuse-To:	abuse AT dyndns DOT com (see http://www.dyndns.com/services/sendlabs/outbound_abuse.html for abuse reporting information)
X-MHO-User:	U2FsdGVkX1+WKxmMoKrzvePkXyvnN5gI
Date:	Thu, 12 Jul 2012 13:09:40 -0400
From:	Christopher Faylor <cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please AT cygwin DOT com>
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: tar won't extract all files when a file with exe extension precedes the same without extension inside the archive
Message-ID:	<20120712170940.GA25721@ednor.casa.cgf.cx>
Reply-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References:	<BLU152-W148807FCA9B75410CB8F1FCED10 AT phx DOT gbl> <92B65842B4224F3FA65CE40F3608F7DF AT multiplay DOT co DOT uk> <20120712010353 DOT GB14112 AT ednor DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx> <447894CEE2E7427F8E0AFC5A206BAD92 AT multiplay DOT co DOT uk> <981681190 DOT 20120712160313 AT mtu-net DOT ru> <4FFED62A DOT 7060106 AT cygwin DOT com> <EEF3431C30314B69B826B954F2D49B64 AT ahallpc> <4FFEFE4B DOT 5060107 AT sister-shadow DOT de>
MIME-Version:	1.0
In-Reply-To:	<4FFEFE4B.5060107@sister-shadow.de>
User-Agent:	Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id:	<cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Unsubscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-unsubscribe-archive-cygwin=delorie DOT com AT cygwin DOT 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

On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 06:41:47PM +0200, Otto Meta wrote:
>> 2.  Since this is a "Windows thing", is there some reason why the execution
>> of "file" or "file.exe" isn't handled as a special case in the exec call
>> (and all its flavors) and no place else?
>
>make, for example? If you have a rule that creates "foo" from foo.c,
>gcc will actually create "foo.exe". The next time you run make, it
>won?t see "foo" and recreate "foo.exe", even if "foo.exe" is still
>up to date.
>
>With the special handling of .exe, when make checks for "foo", cygwin
>checks "foo" first, doesn?t find anything, and then checks "foo.exe",
>returning its result to make and make is happy.
>
>Anothen example: A script tries to execute "foo" from . , cygwin
>executes "foo.exe" instead and the script thinks "foo" exists,
>but a subsequent "touch foo" (or "rm foo" or whatever) fails, which
>is massively inconsistent.
>
>I consider the current handling of .exe files quite consistent.
>
>Or, in other words, when forced to choose between the two pains,
>I?d rather endure this.

Thank you.  These were some of the considerations that were made
when the change was implemented.

That said, however, probably tar and friends could be modified to deal
with the situation of trying to create both file and file.exe.

Or, maybe there's a wonderful patch for the DLL which would fix this.

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 -