X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 18:32:02 -0400
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please AT cygwin DOT com>
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: 'cp' utility bug when <dest-name>.exe file exist.
Message-ID: <20100611223201.GA23592@ednor.casa.cgf.cx>
Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References: <4C1279E9 DOT 9070807 AT cygwin DOT com> <2BF01EB27B56CC478AD6E5A0A28931F20101D804 AT A1DAL1SWPES19MB DOT ams DOT acs-inc DOT net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <2BF01EB27B56CC478AD6E5A0A28931F20101D804@A1DAL1SWPES19MB.ams.acs-inc.net>
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 Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 01:32:48PM -0500, Nellis, Kenneth wrote:
>> From: Larry Hall (Cygwin)
>> Sent: Friday, June 11, 2010 14:01
>> To: cygwin
>> Subject: Re: 'cp' utility bug when &lt;dest-name&gt;.exe file exist.

You are inexplicably duplicating the header of the message in the body
of the message, along with an email address and everything.  Please don't
do that.  There is no reason for it.

>> On 6/11/2010 1:46 PM, Steven Collins wrote:
>> > On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 08:38, Nellis, Kenneth wrote:
>> It was done before on the way to where we are now:
>> 
>> <http://cygwin.com/cygwin-ug-net/using-cygwinenv.html#cygwinenv-removed-options>
>> 
>> See "(no)transparent_exe".  But there's really no point in making arguments
>> about how to fine-tune an implementation when the implementation itself has
>> been likened to a theoretical snowball spending the summer in hell.
>...
>
>The link refers us to the "(no)transparent_exe" CYGWIN option with 
>the following explanation:
>
>    This option has been removed because the behaviour it 
>    switched on is now the standard behaviour in Cygwin.

Which, I believe was Larry's point.

>This seems to presume that the new (with 1.7) "standard" behavior 
>is what everyone wanted, which now seems to be in dispute. To me, 
>it seems like a good option to retain.

Corinna has already weighed in on the subject, as have I.  So, it seems
pretty unlikely that change to cygwin's behavior is going to happen
anytime soon, barring the ever elusive "patch".

cgf

--
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