Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
X-Authentication-Warning: slinky.cs.nyu.edu: pechtcha owned process doing -bs
Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2004 13:56:26 -0500 (EST)
From: Igor Pechtchanski <pechtcha AT cs DOT nyu DOT edu>
Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
To: Robert R Schneck-McConnell <schneck AT math DOT berkeley DOT edu>
cc: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Managed mounts and .exe files (Was Re: cp, install, and the .exe extension)
In-Reply-To: <E1AubuT-000Msq-81@mk-smarthost-8.mail.uk.tiscali.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.56.0402211343570.29632@slinky.cs.nyu.edu>
References: <c13c7j$ue4$1 AT sea DOT gmane DOT org> <20040219232350 DOT GE23994 AT redhat DOT com> <c15jtg$jmj$1 AT sea DOT gmane DOT org> <6 DOT 0 DOT 1 DOT 1 DOT 0 DOT 20040220141302 DOT 0391ba10 AT 127 DOT 0 DOT 0 DOT 1> <E1AubuT-000Msq-81 AT mk-smarthost-8 DOT mail DOT uk DOT tiscali DOT com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-ID: <Pine DOT GSO DOT 4 DOT 56 DOT 0402211343572 DOT 29632 AT slinky DOT cs DOT nyu DOT edu>
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.39

On Sat, 21 Feb 2004, Robert R Schneck-McConnell wrote:

> [snip]
> Hey, it might be interesting for managed mounts *really* to identify the
> filenames "foo" and "foo.exe".  (Maybe they already do?)
>
> Robert

Huh?  What do you mean by "identify" here?  If you mean "equate", this
most likely won't happen.  If you mean "differentiate", then that's
already happening even on non-managed mounts (hence the need for special
cp and install hacks).  If you simply mean that *cp* (and install) should
not assume foo=foo.exe on managed mounts, then PTC. :-)

FWIW, WinNT/2k/XP allow executables to not have a .exe extension.

This does, however, bring me to an interesting observation about managed
mode mounts that I just thought of: since capital letters are encoded on
managed mounts, the underlying filesystem won't see "a.Exe" as an
executable file (nor, for that matter, "A.EXE").  Or, rather, it'll
probably be possible to execute it (especially on WinNT/2k/XP systems),
but using "./a.Exe", not "./a".  I know, I know, PTC, but I just wanted to
get this into the archives.
	Igor
-- 
				http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/
      |\      _,,,---,,_		pechtcha AT cs DOT nyu DOT edu
ZZZzz /,`.-'`'    -.  ;-;;,_		igor AT watson DOT ibm DOT com
     |,4-  ) )-,_. ,\ (  `'-'		Igor Pechtchanski, Ph.D.
    '---''(_/--'  `-'\_) fL	a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-.  Meow!

"I have since come to realize that being between your mentor and his route
to the bathroom is a major career booster."  -- Patrick Naughton

--
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/