Greetings, Al!
>> You didn't read my reply to the end, but I accept your explanation.
>> Still, that specific point of code is suspicious for my taste of
>> fool-proof'ness.
>>
> Sure you could reflect about the length of minor versions here. But
> does that address the original topic? :-)
> Aft
>
> You didn't read my reply to the end, but I accept your explanation.
> Still, that specific point of code is suspicious for my taste of
> fool-proof'ness.
>
Sure you could reflect about the length of minor versions here. But
does that address the original topic? :-)
After python 2.7 there is 3
Greetings, Al!
>> I'm fairly certain, that the script is bugged in this specific case.
>> It should be looking for python2.* instead.
>> Minor version could have any length... potentially. (And yes, I know, there
>> wouldn't be .10 for now)
> Definitly not. It would also find "python2.6-config" w
Greetings, Al!
>> For instance, this one: Either we always remove the .exe suffix from
>> a file, or we have to check for each file with a .exe suffix, whether
>> it's executable or not.
> Probably without checking it. No sane program would use the .exe
> suffix as extension of a mere textfile.
> I'm fairly certain, that the script is bugged in this specific case.
> It should be looking for python2.* instead.
> Minor version could have any length... potentially. (And yes, I know, there
> wouldn't be .10 for now)
Definitly not. It would also find "python2.6-config" which is not
wanted. It
>> 1.) When a file is made executable .exe is appended, but only visible
>> from Windows API.
> How would this work with non-Cygwin programs? They wouldn't be handled
> under
> (1).
Depends on how you install or mount them.
But yes, as a prerequest there would be two types of filessystem
handli
Greetings, Al!
> I have another interesting case where .exe magic doesn't work as
> transparently as one would expect.
> I have a file python2.6.exe. A script tries to find it with "ls
> python2.?". It is not found.
I'm fairly certain, that the script is bugged in this specific case.
It should b
On 9/15/2010 12:23 PM, Al wrote:
For instance, this one: Either we always remove the .exe suffix from
a file, or we have to check for each file with a .exe suffix, whether
it's executable or not.
Probably without checking it. No sane program would use the .exe
suffix as extension of a mere te
>
> For instance, this one: Either we always remove the .exe suffix from
> a file, or we have to check for each file with a .exe suffix, whether
> it's executable or not.
Probably without checking it. No sane program would use the .exe
suffix as extension of a mere textfile.
What would be the id
> I'd love to drop the .exe suffix from readdir(), I'm just not sure what
> unwelcome side-effects we create.
>
Yes, that's always the point. All programs would break, that are only
build against the .exe suffix. Like mine after patching it. :-)
Don't know if Cygwin has a testing state to fix tho
On Sep 15 15:50, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Sep 15 15:38, Al wrote:
> > >
> > > True. In theory we would have to remove .exe and .lnk suffixes from
> > > directory listings as well, but that was never the case in Cygwin.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > That's the way it has always been... isn't a strong ar
On Sep 15 15:38, Al wrote:
> >
> > True. In theory we would have to remove .exe and .lnk suffixes from
> > directory listings as well, but that was never the case in Cygwin.
> >
> >
>
> That's the way it has always been... isn't a strong argument in development.
It wasn't an argument, it was jus
>
> True. In theory we would have to remove .exe and .lnk suffixes from
> directory listings as well, but that was never the case in Cygwin.
>
>
That's the way it has always been... isn't a strong argument in development.
I guess there are some other reasons to do it this way. If not one
should
On Sep 15 13:40, Al wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have another interesting case where .exe magic doesn't work as
> transparently as one would expect.
>
> I have a file python2.6.exe. A script tries to find it with "ls
> python2.?". It is not found.
>
> Here the script needs a modification to work with C
Hello,
I have another interesting case where .exe magic doesn't work as
transparently as one would expect.
I have a file python2.6.exe. A script tries to find it with "ls
python2.?". It is not found.
Here the script needs a modification to work with Cygwin, but we can't
really say that there is
>
> I got a little bit confused now. Should I report now upstream at Perl
> that Configure
> has a problem by adding .exe, or is it just a problem with your layout?
>
> AFAIK perl does not symlink tr.exe, just its own files when using
> -Dmksymlinks.
> And failing to read a wrong tr.exe symlink do
>
> I got a little bit confused now. Should I report now upstream at Perl
> that Configure
> has a problem by adding .exe, or is it just a problem with your layout?
>
> AFAIK perl does not symlink tr.exe, just its own files when using
> -Dmksymlinks.
> And failing to read a wrong tr.exe symlink do
2010/9/6 Al:
>> The magic is to *add* the .exe suffix automatically, not *removing* it
>
> Aaaahh!
>
> That is one point I missed. The magic is still more limited than I
> assumed. It felt to work bidirectional.
>
> I have tested this. The unidirectonal magic also works for symlinks,
> if t
> The magic is to *add* the .exe suffix automatically, not *removing* it
Aaaahh!
That is one point I missed. The magic is still more limited than I
assumed. It felt to work bidirectional.
I have tested this. The unidirectonal magic also works for symlinks,
if the symlink has the .exe suf
On Sep 6 14:56, Al wrote:
> >
> > It's definitely a bug in perl's Configure. If the name of the symlink
> > is "foo", there's not the faintest reason to assume that "foo.exe" should
> > work at all.
> >
> >
> > Corinna
> >
>
> Magic is when it does the right thing magically. With your approach
>
>
> It's definitely a bug in perl's Configure. If the name of the symlink
> is "foo", there's not the faintest reason to assume that "foo.exe" should
> work at all.
>
>
> Corinna
>
Magic is when it does the right thing magically. With your approach
you don't need any magic at all.
Al
--
Problem
On Sep 6 12:36, Al wrote:
> >> That's what Perls "Configure" does. Still the magic works only in the
> >> target directory, but not on the level of the symlink itself.
> >
> > Uh, I see. That's a bug in perl's Configure. It shouldn't use the
> > .exe suffix at all.
> >
> >
>
> Right, Perl wants
>> That's what Perls "Configure" does. Still the magic works only in the
>> target directory, but not on the level of the symlink itself.
>
> Uh, I see. That's a bug in perl's Configure. It shouldn't use the
> .exe suffix at all.
>
>
Right, Perl wants to be superschlau and adds the .exe suffix.
On Sep 6 11:53, Al wrote:
> It does not:
>
> > It does:
> >
> > $ cd tmp
> > $ mkdir dir1 dir2
> > $ cp /bin/echo.exe dir1
> > $ ln -s `pwd`/dir1/echo.exe dir2/echo
> > $ ls -l dir*
> > dir1:
> > total 52
> > -rwxr-xr-x 1 corinna vinschen 49166 2010-09-06 10:59 echo.exe
> >
> > dir2:
> >
It does not:
> It does:
>
> $ cd tmp
> $ mkdir dir1 dir2
> $ cp /bin/echo.exe dir1
> $ ln -s `pwd`/dir1/echo.exe dir2/echo
> $ ls -l dir*
> dir1:
> total 52
> -rwxr-xr-x 1 corinna vinschen 49166 2010-09-06 10:59 echo.exe
>
> dir2:
> total 1
> lrwxrwxrwx 1 corinna vinschen 31 2010-09-06
On Sep 5 16:28, Al wrote:
> I came accross the following. These two files existed.
>
> /home/prefix/gentoo/bin/tr.exe
> /home/prefix/gentoo/usr/bin/tr -> /home/prefix/gentoo.bin/tr.exe
^^^
dot,
26 matches
Mail list logo
