Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@cygwin.com Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2005 12:34:18 -0400 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: Re: Unwanted .exe appended to symlinks Message-ID: <20050709163418.GB11356@trixie.casa.cgf.cx> Reply-To: cygwin@cygwin.com References: <1120880636.6400.7.camel@localhost.localdomain> <42CF4C9D.8000708@byu.net> <20050709050214.GA10083@trixie.casa.cgf.cx> <42CFBE28.3060808@byu.net> <20050709163242.GA11356@trixie.casa.cgf.cx> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050709163242.GA11356@trixie.casa.cgf.cx> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i On Sat, Jul 09, 2005 at 12:32:43PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote: >On Sat, Jul 09, 2005 at 06:08:08AM -0600, Eric Blake wrote: >>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >>Hash: SHA1 >> >>According to Christopher Faylor on 7/8/2005 11:02 PM: >>> I don't get it. Certainly /cygdrive/c.exe doesn't exist so why would you >>> try to link to it? >> >>The algorithm I used was this: >> >>1 - If source exists [determined by the return value of readlink >>("source"), although just now I realized that for symbolic links, it >>should really be the return value of readlink (concat (dirname ("dest"), >>"source")) since symbolic links are relative to the destination, not the pwd] >> 2a - if source is non-symlink and exists with a trailing . [determined by >>access ("source.")] use "source", else use "source.exe", because one of >>those two spellings must have made test 1 succeed >> 2b - if source is symlink and exists with a trailing .lnk [determined by >>readlink ("source.lnk")] use "source", else use "source.exe", because one >>of those two spellings must have made test 1 succeed >> >>I think the cleanup needs to be along these lines - in steps 2a and 2b, do >>a sanity check of also checking whether "source.exe" exists. > >I don't know why you'd ever just assume that .exe exists. > >Wouldn't it be safer to just do: > > struct stat st1, st2; > > stat ("foo", &st1); > > if (stat ("foo.exe", &st2) == 0 && st2.st_ino == st1.st_ino) > return "foo.exe"; > else > return "foo"; > >You could add st_dev checking, too, if you were really paranoid. You can also replace "stat" with "lstat" as appropriate, of course. cgf -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/