Greetings, Hans-Bernhard Bröker!
> Am 10.08.2016 um 03:01 schrieb Andrey Repin:
>> PATHEXT tells the shell to consider these file extensions executable.
Erik:
> PATHEXT is very simply a list of extensions CMD.EXE will automatically
> append to the given filename when searching the PATH for a com
Am 10.08.2016 um 03:01 schrieb Andrey Repin:
PATHEXT tells the shell to consider these file extensions executable.
No. That's what file associations do. cygstart will apply those where
needed, so let's consider that aspect of the case closed, shall we?
PATHEXT has just _one_ job, in those
On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 9:01 PM, Andrey Repin wrote:
> Greetings, Erik Soderquist!
>
>> PATHEXT looks for *executable* files, not file association. I warned
>> previously in this thread about getting the two confused.
>
> Your statement is confusing. If not contradictory.
> PATHEXT tells the shell
On 8/9/2016 9:11 PM, Warren Young wrote:
> On Aug 9, 2016, at 7:01 PM, Andrey Repin wrote:
>>
>>> PATHEXT looks for *executable* files, not file association. I warned
>>> previously in this thread about getting the two confused.
>>
>> Your statement is confusing. If not contradictory.
>> PATHEXT t
On Aug 10 03:44, Andrey Repin wrote:
> Greetings, Corinna Vinschen!
>
> >> As for PATHEXT we can do the following scenario instead.
> >>
> >> export PATHEXT="$PATHEXT;.TXT"
> >> vi foo.txt
> >> :set ff=dos
> >> i
> >> a
> >> b
> >> c
> >>
> >> :wq
> >> cmd /c foo
>
> > As you show here, the PAT
On Aug 9, 2016, at 6:10 PM, Warren Young wrote:
>
> On Aug 4, 2016, at 5:43 PM, Michel LaBarre wrote:
>
>> Three isolated *nix-like environments have died under Windows - Interix,
>> POSIX subsystem under NT, and I expect Ubuntu under Win10 because of the
>> lack of integration with Win32.
>
>
On Aug 9, 2016, at 7:01 PM, Andrey Repin wrote:
>
>> PATHEXT looks for *executable* files, not file association. I warned
>> previously in this thread about getting the two confused.
>
> Your statement is confusing. If not contradictory.
> PATHEXT tells the shell to consider these file extension
Greetings, Erik Soderquist!
> PATHEXT looks for *executable* files, not file association. I warned
> previously in this thread about getting the two confused.
Your statement is confusing. If not contradictory.
PATHEXT tells the shell to consider these file extensions executable.
If you create a
Greetings, Corinna Vinschen!
>> As for PATHEXT we can do the following scenario instead.
>>
>> export PATHEXT="$PATHEXT;.TXT"
>> vi foo.txt
>> :set ff=dos
>> i
>> a
>> b
>> c
>>
>> :wq
>> cmd /c foo
> As you show here, the PATHEXT definition is so that it also contains
> file suffixes which req
On Aug 4, 2016, at 5:43 PM, Michel LaBarre wrote:
>
> Well my first foray into the world of CYGWIN mailing lists has been a lot of
> fun so far.
You can’t expect to come into a well-established community and expect no
push-back when you insist that they make a wide-reaching change just to suit
On Aug 8, 2016, at 8:00 AM, Erik Soderquist wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 9:52 AM, Erik Soderquist wrote:
>> On Sun, Aug 7, 2016 at 4:11 AM, Herbert Stocker wrote:
code required to handle .exe and .lnk extensions you don't *want*
PATHEXT support anymore.
>>>
>>> Moreso, this
>
> On Aug 9, 2016, at 3:41 PM, Warren Young wrote:
>
> On Aug 9, 2016, at 2:07 AM, Herbert Stocker wrote:
>>
>> On 8/9/2016 2:45 AM, Michel LaBarre wrote:
>>> It could very well be that, as one response to me on this thread
>>> alluded, CYGWIN's role is to provide the equivalent of an isolate
On Aug 9, 2016, at 2:07 AM, Herbert Stocker wrote:
>
> On 8/9/2016 2:45 AM, Michel LaBarre wrote:
>> It could very well be that, as one response to me on this thread
>> alluded, CYGWIN's role is to provide the equivalent of an isolated
> > POSIX VM under Windows without the VM.
>
> ...CYGWIN is
On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 11:15 AM, cyg Simple wrote:
> On 8/9/2016 10:13 AM, Erik Soderquist wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 8:58 AM, cyg Simple wrote:
>>> I tried "chmod +x foo.txt; ./foo.txt" but that results in Cygwin
>>> assuming the text file is a script and executing each line of the file.
>>>
---
> file. I'm not satisfied that we should continue with the .exe
> artificial symlink for the same reasons we shouldn't use PATHEXT.
> Because of the amount of time to port scripts and software to use the
> .exe suffix for executable files it shou
On 8/9/2016 10:13 AM, Erik Soderquist wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 8:58 AM, cyg Simple wrote:
>> I tried "chmod +x foo.txt; ./foo.txt" but that results in Cygwin
>> assuming the text file is a script and executing each line of the file.
>> If PATHEXT were used only to determine that the file sho
On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 8:58 AM, cyg Simple wrote:
> I tried "chmod +x foo.txt; ./foo.txt" but that results in Cygwin
> assuming the text file is a script and executing each line of the file.
> If PATHEXT were used only to determine that the file should be passed to
> ShellExecute instead it might b
On 8/9/2016 9:07 AM, Marco Atzeri wrote:
> On 09/08/2016 14:58, cyg Simple wrote:
>>
>>> So, if we actually implement PATHEXT, its usage would be limited to
>>> suffixes of binary files and files starting with #!, or we
>>> would have to use a way to start an application which doesn't work well
>
On 8/8/2016 10:03 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Aug 8 09:43, cyg Simple wrote:
>> On 8/8/2016 7:23 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>>> On Aug 7 10:11, Herbert Stocker wrote:
On 05.08.2016 17:29, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
If you see the
> code required to handle .exe and .lnk extension
On 09/08/2016 14:58, cyg Simple wrote:
So, if we actually implement PATHEXT, its usage would be limited to
suffixes of binary files and files starting with #!, or we
would have to use a way to start an application which doesn't work well
in a POSIX scenario, or we would have to search the regis
On 8/8/2016 9:43 AM, cyg Simple wrote:
> Maybe we don't want the artificial
> symlink of foo == foo.exe all the time. Maybe it is time we drop the
> artificial symlink altogether in preference for modifying the scripts
> and programs to use .exe when on Windows including Cygwin or perhaps
> creati
On 8/8/2016 10:33 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Aug 8 09:43, cyg Simple wrote:
>> As for PATHEXT we can do the following scenario instead.
>>
>> export PATHEXT="$PATHEXT;.TXT"
>> vi foo.txt
>> :set ff=dos
>> i
>> a
>> b
>> c
>>
>> :wq
>> cmd /c foo
>
> As you show here, the PATHEXT definition
On 8/9/2016 2:45 AM, Michel LaBarre wrote:
It could very well be that, as one response to me on this thread
alluded, CYGWIN's role is to provide the equivalent of an isolated
> POSIX VM under Windows without the VM.
Having used Cygwin for a long time, maybe 10 or 13 years, i see
that CYGWIN is
On 09/08/2016 02:17, Michel LaBarre wrote:
On Aug 8 09:43, cyg Simple wrote:
On 8/8/2016 7:23 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Aug 7 10:11, Herbert Stocker wrote:
On 05.08.2016 17:29, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
So, if we actually implement PATHEXT, its usage would be limited to
suffixes of bina
Based on the emails under this thread and other items I found, it seems that
anomalies
handling program suffixes within CYGWIN are not new. It has been proposed that
the
relevant code be re-thought. I suggest that any rethink consider PATHEXT
support.
It may be of no interest for CYGWIN user
-Original Message-
From: cygwin-ow...@cygwin.com [mailto:cygwin-ow...@cygwin.com] On Behalf Of
Corinna Vinschen
Sent: August-08-16 10:33 AM
To: cygwin@cygwin.com
Subject: Re: PATHEXT is fundamental to Windows and Should be recognised by
CYGWIN
On Aug 8 09:43, cyg Simple wrote:
> O
On Aug 8 09:43, cyg Simple wrote:
> On 8/8/2016 7:23 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > On Aug 7 10:11, Herbert Stocker wrote:
> >> On 05.08.2016 17:29, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >> If you see the
> >>> code required to handle .exe and .lnk extensions you don't *want*
> >>> PATHEXT support anymore.
On Aug 8 09:43, cyg Simple wrote:
> On 8/8/2016 7:23 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > On Aug 7 10:11, Herbert Stocker wrote:
> >> On 05.08.2016 17:29, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >> If you see the
> >>> code required to handle .exe and .lnk extensions you don't *want*
> >>> PATHEXT support anymore.
On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 9:52 AM, Erik Soderquist wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 7, 2016 at 4:11 AM, Herbert Stocker wrote:
>>>
>>> code required to handle .exe and .lnk extensions you don't *want*
>>> PATHEXT support anymore.
>>>
>>
>> Moreso, this code has recently broken my C++ code in Cygwin.
>> It tried t
On Aug 8 09:52, Erik Soderquist wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 7, 2016 at 4:11 AM, Herbert Stocker wrote:
> >>
> >> code required to handle .exe and .lnk extensions you don't *want*
> >> PATHEXT support anymore.
> >>
> >
> > Moreso, this code has recently broken my C++ code in Cygwin.
> > It tried to see if
On Sun, Aug 7, 2016 at 4:11 AM, Herbert Stocker wrote:
>>
>> code required to handle .exe and .lnk extensions you don't *want*
>> PATHEXT support anymore.
>>
>
> Moreso, this code has recently broken my C++ code in Cygwin.
> It tried to see if a directory /dir/subdir/something existed,
> and Cygw
On 8/8/2016 7:23 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Aug 7 10:11, Herbert Stocker wrote:
>> On 05.08.2016 17:29, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> If you see the
>>> code required to handle .exe and .lnk extensions you don't *want*
>>> PATHEXT support anymore.
>>>
>>
>> Moreso, this code has recently broke
On Aug 7 10:11, Herbert Stocker wrote:
> On 05.08.2016 17:29, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> If you see the
> > code required to handle .exe and .lnk extensions you don't *want*
> > PATHEXT support anymore.
> >
>
> Moreso, this code has recently broken my C++ code in Cygwin.
> It tried to see if a d
On 8/7/2016 4:11 AM, Herbert Stocker wrote:
> On 05.08.2016 17:29, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> If you see the
>> code required to handle .exe and .lnk extensions you don't *want*
>> PATHEXT support anymore.
>>
>
> Moreso, this code has recently broken my C++ code in Cygwin.
> It tried to see if a d
On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 8:14 PM, Nellis, Kenneth wrote:
> From: Erik Soderquist
>> ... DOS did a lot of things
>> against already established conventions, such as using a backslash
>> instead of a forward slash as the directory separator, just "to be
>> different".
>
> Not just to be different, but
On 05.08.2016 17:29, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
If you see the
code required to handle .exe and .lnk extensions you don't *want*
PATHEXT support anymore.
Moreso, this code has recently broken my C++ code in Cygwin.
It tried to see if a directory /dir/subdir/something existed,
and Cygwin said y
On 8/5/2016 2:14 PM, Nellis, Kenneth wrote:
From: Erik Soderquist
... DOS did a lot of things
against already established conventions, such as using a backslash
instead of a forward slash as the directory separator, just "to be
different".
Not just to be different, but to distinguish from slas
win-ow...@cygwin.com] On Behalf Of
Vince Rice
Sent: August-05-16 2:45 PM
To: cygwin@cygwin.com
Subject: Re: PATHEXT is fundamental to Windows and Should be recognised by
CYGWIN
The choice to use slashes as qualifers instead of dashes was “just to be
different” as well.
This was ’78-81. VMS wasn
On 05/08/2016 21:43, cyg Simple wrote:
On 8/5/2016 11:29 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Aug 5 11:20, Michel LaBarre wrote:
Hello cygsimple,
Thanks for the advice regarding line length.
I will try to remember to rein in my margins when emailing to cygwin.
Thanks for your recognition of PATHEX
On 8/5/2016 11:29 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Aug 5 11:20, Michel LaBarre wrote:
>> Hello cygsimple,
>>
>> Thanks for the advice regarding line length.
>> I will try to remember to rein in my margins when emailing to cygwin.
>>
>> Thanks for your recognition of PATHEXT's potential value;
>>
The choice to use slashes as qualifers instead of dashes was “just to be
different” as well.
This was ’78-81. VMS wasn’t in Gates’ mind at the time.
> On Aug 5, 2016, at 1:14 PM, Nellis, Kenneth wrote:
>
> From: Erik Soderquist
>> ... DOS did a lot of things
>> against already established con
From: Erik Soderquist
> ... DOS did a lot of things
> against already established conventions, such as using a backslash
> instead of a forward slash as the directory separator, just "to be
> different".
Not just to be different, but to distinguish from slashes used as
command qualifiers (a la VM
[private, off-list reply]
Hi Michael,
Do you have some sort of list of detailed requirements implemented by
MKS
tools where Cygwin is different or lacking in some way?
Maybe Cygwin could pick up some of them.
Anyway, about a month ago, when I learned that Cygwin is now under
the Lesser GPL,
On Aug 5 11:20, Michel LaBarre wrote:
> Hello cygsimple,
>
> Thanks for the advice regarding line length.
> I will try to remember to rein in my margins when emailing to cygwin.
>
> Thanks for your recognition of PATHEXT's potential value;
> reassuring to know I am not alone in my delusions.
>
Hello cygsimple,
Thanks for the advice regarding line length.
I will try to remember to rein in my margins when emailing to cygwin.
Thanks for your recognition of PATHEXT's potential value;
reassuring to know I am not alone in my delusions.
Regarding providing code, I am somewhat stale (though
On 8/5/2016 10:12 AM, cyg Simple wrote:
Cygwin is a tool for windows
first and foremost. It was designed to help make life for those who
support both UNIX and Windows servers a little easier by not having to
convert scripts and utilities.
Well, that's one point of view. Mine is that I get th
On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 7:43 PM, Michel LaBarre wrote:
> Well my first foray into the world of CYGWIN mailing lists has been
> a lot of fun so far.
Glad you enjoyed it :)
> Rather than replying to each respondent, I will try to respond to
> each in one email. This may be a mistake.
It is, as is
Michael,
You need to configure your email client to wrap your text at no more
than 78 characters, 72 would be even better. It helps quoting what you
write better.
You also need to stop top posting or remove the trailing mail from the
reply if quoting that particular mail isn't necessary.
Cygwin
Vince Rice
Sent: August-04-16 1:40 AM
To: Cygwin Mailing List
Subject: Re: PATHEXT is fundamental to Windows and Should be recognised by
CYGWIN
> On Aug 3, 2016, at 8:43 PM, Michel LaBarre wrote:
>
> The CYGWIN site makes it quite difficult to discern how somebody can
> report an is
Greetings, Bill Smith!
> A couple of years ago I was involved with porting a very large code base of
> makefiles & shell scripts to work with Cygwin. In our environment, the main
> issue was shell scripts calling *.bat files without the .bat suffix because
> of the $PATHEXT.
Sounds like it wasn'
Greetings, Michel LaBarre!
> I had seen the reference to a patch to support PATHEXT; it was dismissed
> pretty lightly.
> PATHEXT has been part of Windows
Part of CMD.exe. Not Windows.
> for as long as I can remember - back to the mid-80's - used by shells that
> run under windows (e.g. CMD, Po
> > Problem 1: Cygwin does not support PATHEXT and really should.
>
> No, it should not. Cygwin is a POSIX environment, and it uses POSIX
> conventions to determine if a file is executable somehow.
>
> > PATHEXT is as fundamental component of Windows program execution as
> PATH.
>
> PATHEXT i
Greetings, Kaz Kylheku!
> I can't find any reference anywhere to PATHEXT being used outside
> of the CMD.EXE interpreter, which rather tends to make it substantially
> less than fundamental to Windows, though noteworthy.
> Certainly, CreateProcess does not use PATHEXT.
> I can't find any documen
Greetings, Michel LaBarre!
> Problem 1: Cygwin does not support PATHEXT and really should.
No, it should not. Cygwin is a POSIX environment, and it uses POSIX
conventions to determine if a file is executable somehow.
> PATHEXT is as fundamental component of Windows program execution as PATH.
P
Hi Michel,
On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 6:30 AM, Michel LaBarre wrote:
> Thanks for the reply Kaz. I did not embed any comments in your reply for the
> sake of brevity.
Please don't top-post.
For the sake of brevity: https://cygwin.com/acronyms/#TOFU
Csaba
--
GCS a+ e++ d- C++ ULS$ L+$ !E- W++ P+
On 3 August 2016 at 22:30, Michel LaBarre wrote:
> ...
>
> PATHEXT has been part of Windows for as long as I can remember - back to
> the mid-80's - used by shells that run under windows
>
First, this discussion is more appropriate for cygwin-talk than this list.
Second, PATHEXT is an attempt
> On Aug 3, 2016, at 8:43 PM, Michel LaBarre wrote:
>
> The CYGWIN site makes it quite difficult to discern how somebody can report
> an issue or comment.
If you think a plainly labeled “Reporting Problems” and “Mailing Lists” in the
prominent sidebar is difficult, then I’m afraid it’s only goin
rences to both my problems)
it would facilitate its adoption by both Unix and non-Unix types.
Cheers,
Michel
-Original Message-
From: cygwin-ow...@cygwin.com [mailto:cygwin-ow...@cygwin.com] On Behalf Of Kaz
Kylheku
Sent: August-03-16 10:55 PM
To: Michel LaBarre
Cc: cygwin@cygwin.com
Su
On 03.08.2016 18:43, Michel LaBarre wrote:
Problem 1: Cygwin does not support PATHEXT and really should.
A casual websearch shows that this topic has come up before.
For instance, someone posted, some decade ago, to the Cygwin mailing
list, a patch against GNU Bash to make its command search
The CYGWIN site makes it quite difficult to discern how somebody can report
an issue or comment.
In any event, I subscribed to the cygwin mailing list and am replying to one
of the many links sent to me in case this happens to be a way to comment.
Problem 1: Cygwin does not support PATHEXT and r
60 matches
Mail list logo
