xe is missing, but other
>> programs (particularly cmd) do, so it is better if PE-COFF files are
>> given the .exe extension. But implementing it is tricky - for example,
>> in the case of 'cat a> b', there is no way to tell at the time when b
>> is created whether i
Hello Eric,
* On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 08:16:42AM -0700 Eric Blake wrote:
> In general, cygwin does not care if the .exe is missing, but other
> programs (particularly cmd) do, so it is better if PE-COFF files are
> given the .exe extension.
Is it really better to add the .exe extensi
rticularly cmd) do, so it is better if PE-COFF files are
> >given the .exe extension. But implementing it is tricky - for example,
> >in the case of 'cat a> b', there is no way to tell at the time when b
> >is created whether it will be populated with PE-COFF contents
moves or copies, and fewer places where
.exe is appended on a whim if the source didn't have one).
In general, cygwin does not care if the .exe is missing, but other
programs (particularly cmd) do, so it is better if PE-COFF files are
given the .exe extension. But implementing it is tricky
On 03/12/2010 08:03 AM, Nellis, Kenneth wrote:
> I wonder if there is more explanation available about how Cygwin
> handles the .exe extension than I found in the User's Guide.
>
> http://cygwin.com/cygwin-ug-net/
>
> I'm running 1.7.1.
> In particular, I f
I wonder if there is more explanation available about how Cygwin
handles the .exe extension than I found in the User's Guide.
http://cygwin.com/cygwin-ug-net/
I'm running 1.7.1.
In particular, I find it odd that moving a binary executable
toggles whether or not it has the .exe
Max Bowsher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> $ touch foo.exe
>>> $ cp foo bar
>>> cp: `foo' and `bar' are the same file
>
> I suppose the answer is to simply patch coreutils to give a better
> error message in this case.
I submitted just such a patch in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
at
http://www.cygwin.com/
Hannu E K Nevalainen wrote:
>> From: Max Bowsher
>> Sent: Friday, May 14, 2004 11:38 PM
>
>> $ touch foo.exe
>> $ cp foo bar
>> cp: `foo' and `bar' are the same file
>>
>> The above error message is rather confusing.
>>
>> Is Cygwi
> From: Max Bowsher
> Sent: Friday, May 14, 2004 11:38 PM
> $ touch foo.exe
> $ cp foo bar
> cp: `foo' and `bar' are the same file
>
> The above error message is rather confusing.
>
> Is Cygwin's cp supposed to transparently permit the omission of
&g
$ touch foo.exe
$ cp foo bar
cp: `foo' and `bar' are the same file
The above error message is rather confusing.
Is Cygwin's cp supposed to transparently permit the omission of the .exe extension, or
am I misremembering?
Max.
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#uns
On Feb 21 23:07, Robert R Schneck wrote:
> Igor Pechtchanski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > FWIW, WinNT/2k/XP allow executables to not have a .exe extension.
>
> I wasn't aware of it, and haven't been able to figure it out in a couple
> of minutes of playing around and Googling. How?
On NT, the
mean that *cp* (and install) should
> not assume foo=foo.exe on managed mounts, then PTC. :-)
I mean, that Windows special handling of .exe be invisible on managed
mounts. So "equate" in that the Cygwin filename "foo" might be
the actual file "foo.exe", but certainly
On Sat, 21 Feb 2004, Robert R Schneck-McConnell wrote:
> [snip]
> Hey, it might be interesting for managed mounts *really* to identify the
> filenames "foo" and "foo.exe". (Maybe they already do?)
>
> Robert
Huh? What do you mean by "identify" here? If you mean "equate", this
most likely won't
On Fri, 20 Feb 2004, Larry Hall wrote:
[on changing the error message when cp can stat but not open a file
due to .exe handling]
> How about a patch instead of a request? ;-)
Okay, attached. I've also attached a textutils patch to enact my earlier
request that "cat > foo" create foo in the whate
At 01:33 PM 2/20/2004, Robert R Schneck you wrote:
>Christopher Faylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 19, 2004 at 10:09:55PM +, Robert R Schneck wrote:
>>>If I replace "copy.c" with either of the other two and rebuild, I get a
>>>"cp&
Christopher Faylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 19, 2004 at 10:09:55PM +, Robert R Schneck wrote:
>>If I replace "copy.c" with either of the other two and rebuild, I get a
>>"cp" which *does* have special handling for the .exe extension.
&
On Thu, Feb 19, 2004 at 10:09:55PM +, Robert R Schneck wrote:
>This is a bug in the fileutils packaging (I think).
>
>Recently I noticed that "install" has special handling for the .exe
>extension, and "cp" does not. In the fileutils source tarball
>I noti
This is a bug in the fileutils packaging (I think).
Recently I noticed that "install" has special handling for the .exe
extension, and "cp" does not. In the fileutils source tarball
I notice there are three files:
copy.c copy.c.cgf copy.c.orig
If I replace "copy.c&
18 matches
Mail list logo
