X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2010 16:28:28 +0200
From: Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: 'cp' utility bug when <dest-name>.exe file exist.
Message-ID: <20100609142828.GA8163@calimero.vinschen.de>
Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References: <AANLkTil0pNuO4a9n2Ln5H3Q0cJRdQER7NlgSTg2a9EN2 AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <OFCB72527D DOT F8E42EE2-ON8525773C DOT 0058E3E2-8525773C DOT 0059F451 AT lnotes-gw DOT ent DOT nwie DOT net> <1276042636 DOT 1651 DOT 9 DOT camel AT erebor> <AANLkTil6fa2-stL9f3hd-Dg-X6FjzVKLeG56lPoI7OYp AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <20100609044034 DOT GB9305 AT ednor DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx> <AANLkTikJ9U3U49HlT9Ldm6aueX3z22gN_6L95P-E2Pwz AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <AANLkTinrgelZ5PcMhWjzehe8sa-cjkGoiFI8WpLGNh84 AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <AANLkTikzCzig2SyG_J1dtGPDvDVCLYZyZM_TBj9fxNgm AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <AANLkTilSrEgdrVMMMZQLZrnU1wKi-WrQt8H4_JX3B-w7 AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <4C0FA1CA DOT 4070000 AT redhat DOT com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4C0FA1CA.4070000@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:cygwin-unsubscribe-archive-cygwin=delorie DOT com AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/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

On Jun  9 08:14, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 06/09/2010 08:08 AM, Andy Koppe wrote:
> >>> More importantly, a lot of build scripts likely depend on the .exe being added automatically.
> >>
> >> Hm. Maybe they shouldn't.
> > 
> > Yeah, but "shouldn't" never stopped anyone, hence any transition would
> > certainly not be pain-free.
> 
> A first step would be teaching gcc to not append .exe.  Many configure
> scripts (certainly almost all scripts based on autoconf) determine
> $(EXEEXT) based on gcc behavior, and will just do the right thing
> throughout the rest of the build with $(EXEEXT) empty (as evidenced by
> their behavior on Linux).
> 
> But even with that gcc change, we'd have to keep .exe magic in
> cygwin1.dll until everything in the distro has been rebuilt without an
> .exe suffix.
> 
> However, I'm starting to like the idea, if we can get buy-in from the
> gcc packager.  Dave?

I seriously doubt the advantages.  Cygwin will have to support .exe
for the next couple of years anyway.  There are too many applications
out there already using the .exe suffix.  There are too many people
out there expecting "foo" to start "foo.exe".  There are too many
applications calling stat before exec which will fail.  To me this
all is a moot discussion for the very minor benefit to allow a file
"foo" alongside of a file "foo.exe".


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple