Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 20:27:31 +0500
Message-Id: <200004251527.UAA00797@midpec.com>
From: Prashant TR <prashant_tr AT yahoo DOT com>
To: eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il
CC: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1000425113929.23128V-100000@is> (message from Eli
	Zaretskii on Tue, 25 Apr 2000 11:40:01 +0200 (IST))
Subject: Re: Sh-utils 2.0g uploaded
References:  <Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 1000425113929 DOT 23128V-100000 AT is>
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

> > 4> Shouldn't the DJGPP version of chown and chmod look for files with .exe
> >    extensions?
> 
> I'm not sure it should.  Could you describe the specific cases where
> you had such problems?

The installation of su can be done only with superuser privileges. It uses
chown and chmod to check this. Now, "chown root.xxx" su doesn't work.

In Unix, there is no specific extension for executables, so this works.
However, DJGPP creates EXEs and I think it would be logical for chown and
chmod to work on them without giving the extra .EXE extension.

In short, when I say "chown root.root su", it should look for 'su' first and
then 'su.exe' if that's not available.