Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.cygnus.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com>, <http://sourceware.cygnus.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
From: Chris Faylor <cgf AT cygnus DOT com>
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2000 18:09:21 -0500
To: Cygwin <cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com>
Subject: Re: No such file or directory
Message-ID: <20000326180921.A1211@cygnus.com>
Reply-To: cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cgf AT cygnus DOT com, Cygwin <cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com>
References: <20000326230229 DOT 29455 DOT qmail AT web802 DOT mail DOT yahoo DOT com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.1.8i
In-Reply-To: <20000326230229.29455.qmail@web802.mail.yahoo.com>; from rick_rankin@yahoo.com on Sun, Mar 26, 2000 at 03:02:29PM -0800

On Sun, Mar 26, 2000 at 03:02:29PM -0800, Rick Rankin wrote:
>I wasn't necessarily saying that it is the "wrong" solution, just that it needs
>to be considered carefully. I wasn't aware that other POSIX layers (I assume
>you are referring to UWIN or similar) have sucessfully implemented a similar
>feature. I haven't thought it through, but on the surface, it does seem that it
>could solve many compatability issues.

I didn't mean to sound like I was criticizing your opinion.  I guess I run that
risk if I "quote" too many "things", like I did "below", though.

I've had wildly different opinions about this over the years, so I can easily
argue either side.  :-)

>If you decide to implement it, should it be selectable via, for example, a
>CYGWIN environment variable setting?

I guess we could do this.  This is YA thing where my opinion has evolved
over the years.  Geoff Noer and I used to disagree about implementing
more CYGWIN options.  Geoff thought that it was a good idea to be very
conservative about adding new options and I thought that it didn't
really matter.

These days, I agree with Geoff.  I don't know if his opinion has similarly
reversed or not, though.  My main reason for limiting options is that it
makes support a little harder.

Anyway, that said, it is worth considering an option.

Christopher Faylor
Cygwin Engineering Manager
Cygnus Solutions, a Red Hat company

>--- Chris Faylor <cgf AT cygnus DOT com> wrote:
>>On Sat, Mar 25, 2000 at 08:13:08PM -0800, Rick Rankin wrote:
>>>It seems like most of the problems you refered to are related to make
>>>and/or install.  Wouldn't it be better to "fix" these programs than to
>>>build something like this into the core?
>>
>>The problem is already "fixed" in install but that doesn't "fix" the
>>problem for packages that don't use "install".
>>
>>So, the only other alternative is to modify, cp and mv.  I guess we
>>could also change every open in make but I don't think that's the right
>>solution.
>>
>>Other POSIX-over-Windows packages seem to default to finding a ".exe".
>>I don't think this would be too burdensome, myself.
>>
>>>--- Chris Faylor <cgf AT cygnus DOT com> wrote:
>>>>I wonder if it would really be a big deal if cygwin, by default, found
>>>>a file "foo.exe" if there was no existing file "foo".
>>>>
>>>>We keep running into this problem and I wonder if implementing this in
>>>>cygwin would solve more problems than it causes.

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com