[ITP] util-linux

Corinna Vinschen corinna-cygwin@cygwin.com
Fri Mar 3 09:16:00 GMT 2006

On Mar  2 20:13, Eric Blake wrote:
> Hash: SHA1
> According to Yaakov S (Cygwin Ports) on 3/2/2006 3:06 PM:
> >>> No.  With Corinna's patch to add CYGWIN=transparent_exe option, we are
> >>> asking for problems if we distribute a script alongside an exe.
> > 
> > OK, but I can think of one *major* "violation" of this: libtool-built
> > applications, when linking against a to-be-installed library in the same
> > package.  In such a case, the real .exe is placed in .libs, and both an
> > extension-less libtool script  and a launcher .exe are placed in the
> > builddir; this allows one to run the application w/o installing it.
> Yes, I'm aware of that, and I would love to spend some free time trying to
> solve another way for libtool to work without relying on the (subtle)
> difference between 'foo' and 'foo.exe' when testing uninstalled
> libtoolized applications.  This libtool (ab)use of filenames has already
> had difficulties with managed mounts and trailing dots.  Then there was
> the time when I tried to patch rm in coreutils-5.3.0 to handle .exe
> transparently (and immediately had to retract that change because of libtool).

I'm all on your side Eric.  I don't understand why this libtool behaviour
is necessary at all.  There must be really another way without having
foo and foo.exe in the same directory.  "This works fine on Linux without
this hack"(TM).

Charles?  Any chance that libtool could do without this hack?


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

More information about the Cygwin-apps mailing list