Re: 1.7.2?

[Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cygwin at cygwin dot com>]

On Mar  4 11:55, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Mar  4 11:23, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> It works like this:
> 
>   - If the original file is recognized as a binary,
>   - and if the destination file exists,
>   - and if the destination pathname does not have one of the known
>     executable suffixes (.com, .dll, .exe, .scr, .sys),
>   - then append ".exe".
> 
> Is the logic here ok?

I just had an in-shower inspiration.  What about this slightly
augmented logic instead:

- If the original file is recognized as a binary,
- and if the destination file exists,
- and if the .exe suffix was not given explicitely in		!!!
  the original pathname,
- and if the destination file isn't a binary already,		!!!
- and if the destination pathname does not have one of the known
  executable suffixes (.com, .dll, .exe, .scr, .sys),
- then append ".exe".

So, first of all, if the .exe suffix had been specified explicitely
in the "from" name, just do blindly what the user asked for, and
if the destination file is a binary, it gets simply replaced as well.
The filename might have a sense as is.

Does that make sense?


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat