X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Message-ID: <45B76311.1000009@byu.net>
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 06:45:53 -0700
From: Eric Blake <ebb9@byu.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.0.9) Gecko/20061207 Thunderbird/1.5.0.9 Mnenhy/0.7.4.666
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: cygwin@cygwin.com
Subject: Re: ln -s exe magic (coreutils 6.7-2)
References: <011701c73f43$3d07d270$3e0010ac@wirelessworld.airvananet.com> <20070124043651.GF25379@ns1.anodized.com> <20070124094810.GN27843@calimero.vinschen.de>
In-Reply-To: <20070124094810.GN27843@calimero.vinschen.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm
List-Id: <cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe@cygwin.com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin@cygwin.com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help@cygwin.com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@cygwin.com

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

According to Corinna Vinschen on 1/24/2007 2:48 AM:
> 
> This looks rather like a problem with the exe magic in coreutils.  FWIW,
> I never liked the idea to create "foo.exe.lnk" symlinks.  They only slow
> down the symlink processing in Cygwin.

Should we get rid of the special processing in cygwin 1.7.0?

Right now, ./foo could invoke one of ./foo, ./foo.exe, ./foo.lnk, or
./foo.exe.lnk.  Removing support for foo.exe.lnk simplifies this case -
when checking for foo, you only have two fallbacks instead of three.

You can also do ./foo.exe, which invokes ./foo.exe or ./foo.exe.lnk.  But
  here, the .lnk fallback is already covered.

I'm having a tough time thinking of any scenarios that will break in a new
installation if we drop .exe.lnk support; and I'm only slightly worried
that existing cases, such as Pierre's example of /usr/sbin/sendmail.lnk
vs. /usr/sbin/sendmail.exe.lnk, tripping up users.  I would be in favor of
such a change, especially since we can tie it to the fact that we are
bumping the major version number.

- --
Don't work too hard, make some time for fun as well!

Eric Blake             ebb9@byu.net
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Cygwin)
Comment: Public key at home.comcast.net/~ericblake/eblake.gpg
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFFt2MR84KuGfSFAYARAtHGAKCSYIBGNw/FhPxNZcD8g3lxQ+rNCACePOxT
9Myjbf683bvw4JTjr7te5lQ=
=/Jgu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
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/

