X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:date:from:reply-to:message-id:to:subject
	:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type
	:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=default; b=KfW/L4HgbB6FIxnE
	D44R0K8jkv1os2fCABY9l+rR8D5+IpvQErYfDkwr1yJ8LFjhZXDzLb954nBx7NwA
	BQMUUv5qj7izGZ5WCmov1gciCOueN2hmENrPjM4gE+NQGKWhsUsy128rCnQ4KahC
	Nobk0jeUNNIaB/mydrQJn/ULNfk=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:date:from:reply-to:message-id:to:subject
	:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type
	:content-transfer-encoding; s=default; bh=E3DlTRZ1CA1hWp24OZw62E
	iO15w=; b=gaksW7ZFVcUiIfVdcztARs9P75OZnvqhxl8JJgkRCFfvjlbXgMdcKv
	AQzG+Dmax02eiv2t6Yy1wSMDXIJWLcVyzvaokCs7mxdMaIeoz9oeF0/bXW0dPb4L
	NLXCoCh4VIP+8gNoUm2slgvFMtjzWUIRHMAFSw73tYgdkXEuHCL1g=
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id: <cygwin.cygwin.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
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found: No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=4.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_50,FREEMAIL_FROM,KAM_THEBAT,RDNS_NONE,SPF_SOFTFAIL,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no version=3.3.2
X-HELO: smtpback.ht-systems.ru
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2013 07:03:11 +0400
From: Andrey Repin <anrdaemon AT yandex DOT ru>
Reply-To: Andrey Repin <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
Message-ID: <93705918.20131105070311@mtu-net.ru>
To: Corinna Vinschen <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
Subject: Re: gcc-4.8.2-1: /bin/gcc fails
In-Reply-To: <20131104114204.GB2731@calimero.vinschen.de>
References: <52749A63 DOT 70803 AT acm DOT org> <20131102093635 DOT GB25012 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <5275D706 DOT 5030207 AT users DOT sourceforge DOT net> <20131104114204 DOT GB2731 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-IsSubscribed: yes

Greetings, Corinna Vinschen!

> On Nov  2 23:54, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
>> On 2013-11-02 04:36, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> >On Nov  1 23:23, David Rothenberger wrote:
>> >>With gcc-4.8.2-1, the following fails:
>> >>
>> >>% touch /tmp/t.c
>> >>% /bin/gcc -c /tmp/t.c
>> >>gcc: error: spawn: No such file or directory
>> 
>> Curious, are you seeing real-life references to /bin/gcc?  Because
>> that wouldn't be portable anyway.

> The real life problems is that whether it works or not depends on
> the path order in $PATH.  That's not exactly transparent to the user.

>> /usr/bin and /lib => /usr/lib symlinks) and this worked fine.
>> AFAICS, the difference there is that /usr/bin is the "real"
>> directory and /bin is just a symlink, where the reverse is true on
>> Cygwin and a mount is used instead of a symlink.

> Exactly.  The symlink on Fedora gets transparently converted to the
> realpath(3) /usr/bin, while on Cygwin there are two realpaths due
> to the mount.

Is this the reason for behavior such as this?

$ which -a test
/usr/bin/test
/usr/bin/test

$ mount
C:/Programs/CygWin/bin on /usr/bin type ntfs (binary,auto)
C:/Programs/CygWin/lib on /usr/lib type ntfs (binary,auto)
C:/Programs/CygWin on / type ntfs (binary,auto)
C:/home on /home type ntfs (binary,noacl,posix=0)
W: on /var/run type vfat (binary,noacl,posix=0)
C: on /c type ntfs (binary,noacl,posix=0,noumount,auto)
Y: on /y type smbfs (binary,noacl,posix=0,noumount,auto)
Z: on /z type smbfs (binary,noacl,posix=0,noumount,auto)

And there's no junctions from /{bin,lib} to /usr, as I was doing at
one point.

>> >Uh oh.  That's bad.  Maybe it wasn't such a good idea to switch
>> >libexecdir from /usr/lib to /usr/libexec?  It breaks applications
>> >using relative paths to search other application components when
>> >run from /bin.
>> AFAIK GCC is unique in this regard; relocatibility code is uncommon,
>> and most other uses of libexecdir definitely use absolute paths.
>> 
>> >Either we revert libexecdir to /usr/lib, or we will need to add an
>> >automount point /libexec -> /usr/libexec as for /bin and /lib.
>> 
>> What if another program references its datadir as ../share/foo?
>> (I'm pretty sure it does happen, although GCC doesn't, FWIW.)  Are
>> you going to make an automount point for that as well?  (Didn't
>> think so.) Relocatibility simply isn't portable to a /bin ==
>> /usr/bin scenarios, although use of a symlink instead of a mount
>> might mitigate that.

> The symlink would help, but we would have to create it during
> installation.  It's ugly, too.

>> So, while I'm not convinced that this is a huge issue overall, if
>> "don't do that" isn't good enough, the easiest workaround is to
>> configure GCC with --libexecdir=/usr/lib.

> That would be the safer option, I guess.

From pure philosophical point, I see reason to make a decision once and for
all.
Do you want to invent your own directory structure or follow the one used by
other *NIX systems?


--
WBR,
Andrey Repin (anrdaemon AT yandex DOT ru) 05.11.2013, <05:21>

Sorry for my terrible english...


--
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