From: cjjohans AT cc DOT helsinki DOT fi (Carl J R Johansson) Subject: Re: Default linker output filename 9 Nov 1996 17:24:07 -0800 Sender: daemon AT cygnus DOT com Approved: cygnus DOT gnu-win32 AT cygnus DOT com Distribution: cygnus Message-ID: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Sender: cjjohans AT vesuri DOT helsinki DOT fi Original-To: hhemken AT cell DOT cinvestav DOT mx Original-cc: gnu-win32 AT cygnus DOT com Original-Sender: owner-gnu-win32 AT cygnus DOT com > However, if the system were able to mark something as executable, there > wouldn't be any point in changing the extension to .exe. Worse, I think > (?) the same is true for NT, an ostensibly *real* OS. > I found that this _is_ actually possible with a small registry hack (on W95). Just create a new key called '.out' (or whatever) under HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT and copy the values for .exe there (Default : 'exefile', Content Type : 'application/x-msdownload'). I found that when I renamed DOS applications they wouldn't work (complained about not finding the file), but that should be totally irrelevant to gnu-win32. I also found that I could not run any of them from a DOS window, that maybe makes them already less useful for gnu-win32? Bash accepted them though, and double-clicking (Explorer) worked. To get the 'executable' icon as well I had to create a separate key called 'UnixFile' (or whatever) and refer to it instead of 'exefile' in '.out'. Then I copied exefiles' values to UnixFile but modified 'DefaultIcon' to 'D:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM\shell32.dll,2' (substitute path as appropriate). It wasn't as easy with extensionless files though, it is possible to have a key called '.' but when I modify it as above and try to execute them I get 'A required DLL file, *the executable*.EXE, was not found' (in bash I got the same message). Maybe some additional hacking would remove this too (in the copies of 'exefiles' values?) but this is as far as I want to go. Thirdly a key called '*' can be created, on my system it was already in use by Winzip so I didn't want to mess with it. I've seen some extensive books on the registry, but don't own one. I have no idea whether this might have some unexpected side-effects, but to me it seems pretty safe (of course the fact that the file did not automatically get the 'executable' icon might be a bit suspect, executables are perhaps dealt with somewhere else too?). cj - For help on using this list, send a message to "gnu-win32-request AT cygnus DOT com" with one line of text: "help".