Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com Message-Id: <4.3.1.2.20011113131532.02220e78@pop.ma.ultranet.com> X-Sender: lhall AT pop DOT ma DOT ultranet DOT com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1 Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 13:24:32 -0500 To: jheyman AT dev DOT tivoli DOT com, cygwin AT cygwin DOT com From: "Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc)" Subject: Re: executable extension? In-Reply-To: <200111131810.MAA21270@devmail.dev.tivoli.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 01:10 PM 11/13/2001, Jerry Heyman wrote: >I didn't see this in the FAQ (maybe I'm just blind) but I've >noticed the following: > >$ cp du.exe du >cp: 'du.exe' and 'du' are the same file > >In stepping through the code, I see that this is the result of >the: > > same = (SAME_INODE(src_sb, dst_sb)); > >statement in copy.c > >I guess I'm trying to understand why stat() sees filename.exe >and filename as the same file :-( This is historical support for Win9x/ME. It's not possible to run an executable on these systems unless the executable exists with a ".exe" extension. Win9x/ME is *very* extension-oriented. NT-based systems don't have this restriction. Many existing scripts that people want to use don't add ".exe" to each executable. Most people don't even type executable names with this extension (nor want to). As a result, we need to map the command name without the extension to the one with, to satisfy Win9x/ME. That's the reason. Now say, thank you Bill! ;-) Larry Hall lhall AT rfk DOT com RFK Partners, Inc. http://www.rfk.com 838 Washington Street (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office Holliston, MA 01746 (508) 893-9889 - FAX -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/