Subject: Re: cp/mv/rm problems with .exe extension filenames
From: [email-masked] (Mumit Khan)

27 Sep 1998 21:39:28 -0700
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
References: <[email-masked]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
To: Fergus Henderson <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Parker, Ron" <[email-masked]>,
        "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>

On Mon, 28 Sep 1998, Fergus Henderson wrote:

> On 25-Sep-1998, Mumit Khan <[email-masked]> wrote:
> > What is the general consensus, if any, here? Here're the choices:
> >   
> >   1. add .exe never.
> >   2. add .exe always, unless .exe is already there. 
> >   3. add .exe only if no suffix is provided.
> 
> My vote is for #1.  That option allows Unix software to build and
> install without modifications, which is after all the whole idea behind
> gnu-win32.  Options 2 and 3 require modifications to Makefiles.

Mine was too until recently when others using our software started
complaining that ShellExecute (a very useful WIN32 API routine) doesn't
seem to work when no extension is provided. Anders Norlander also points
this out in a recent message (related thread).

I guess I'm somewhat torn between #1 and #3; all our config tools and 
makefiles already can switch automatically (this was to facilitate
cross-builds, which I use almost exclusively), so I can live with
either one. Now I use --with-executable-suffix=SUFFIX option to configure
to pick a suffix, which defaults to .exe for ix86-*win32* targets.

> Of course, for mingw32 the answer should be different, because mingw32 has
> different aims.  But if I type `gcc' at a bash prompt, it should give
> me the same results that it does under Unix.

For mingw32, #3 IMO is the only reasonable option at the present time. 
When NT takes over and "command.com" on W9x dies, the Unix behaviour 
will make sense

Regards,
Mumit

-
For help on using this list (especially unsubscribing), send a message to
"[email-masked]" with one line of text: "help".