X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_YE X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org X-Mail-Handler: MailHop Outbound by DynDNS X-Report-Abuse-To: abuse AT dyndns DOT com (see http://www.dyndns.com/services/mailhop/outbound_abuse.html for abuse reporting information) X-MHO-User: U2FsdGVkX1+gAIYFz3kMGS4F1m6kYGzy Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 11:44:56 -0400 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: Inconsistence on file operation when the name already exists with exe extension Message-ID: <20120709154456.GA6696@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: 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: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , 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 Mon, Jul 09, 2012 at 05:23:13PM +0200, notstop wrote: >You must be right in some points, but that is not the exact behavior of >windows command although you pretend it to be (the powershell has a >different behavior). In fact, I can independently operate file while >file.exe exists: > >copy file.exe file >Now there are file and file.exe Common email practice is to include the text of the email you are responding to so that we can know who you are accusing of "pretending". Nevertheless, FYI, powershell is not Cygwin and no one is saying that the behavior you're seeing is mandated by Windows. What you are seeing is a Cygwin accommodation for the fact that .exe is a special extension. Cygwin is not a new project. Its handling of .exe has been hashed and rehashed throughout the life of the project. The current behavior is the compromise that we've settled on. So, what you are seeing is expected. Continuing to argue without familiarizing yourself with past discussions is not likely to expose anything new. -- 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