Subject: install vs gcc wrt .exe
From: [email-masked] (Christopher Seawood)

31 Dec 1998 00:58:20 -0800
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
References: <[email-masked]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
To: [email-masked]

On 29 Dec 1998, Christopher G. Faylor wrote:

> The standard Windows permission settings do not include an execute bit.
> The execute bit is simulated by Cygwin.  If Cygwin sees that a filename
> ends with .exe, it sets the execute permission bits that you see when
> you do a ls -l.  Cygwin will also set the bits if the first two characters
> of a file are '#!'.

I'm having a problem that gcc & install do conflicting things that makes
installing programs a bit of a hassle.  Someone reported several months
ago that install.exe doesn't check for foo.exe when told to install foo.
This wouldn't be so much of a problem except that gcc insists upon
creating exectubles as foo.exe when given -o foo.  This combination breaks
just about every Makefile setup that normally properly handles
--program-suffix=.exe .  Given what Faylor stated above, I don't think
that gcc can be made to do the "proper" thing so I've attached the patch
from [email-masked] install to make install it check for foo.exe
as well as foo.  A potential problem is that foo.exe is no longer
guaranteed to be the same as foo.

(And I got shell scripts workin on text=binary mounts now.  My mount table
must've been seriously screwed up before.)

Regards,
Christopher

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