Christopher Faylor cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please@cygwin.com
Tue Mar 2 20:35:00 GMT 2010

On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 09:32:56PM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>On Mar  2 15:17, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 01:12:47PM -0700, Eric Blake wrote:
>> >According to Corinna Vinschen on 3/2/2010 12:41 PM:
>> >>>> should create "bar.exe" only if "foo" really resolved to "foo.exe" to
>> >>>> begin with?  In other words, what is the use case where someone wants
>> >>>> "foo" to become "bar.exe", but "foo.exe" did not exist, and they called
>> >>>> rename("foo","bar") instead of rename("foo","bar.exe")?
>> >>>
>> >>> I thought the idea is that bar becomes bar.exe if we know that foo is
>> >>> really a PE-COFF binary.
>> >> 
>> >> That's what `strip foo' does.  It creates a temp file, writes the
>> >> stripped content of the executable into the temp file, removes the
>> >> original and then calls rename(temp_filename, "foo").  That's the
>> >> most common situation which (well...) requires to append the .exe
>> >> suffix automatically.
>> >
>> >Would it be easier to teach strip to always append .exe, seeing as how
>> >that is a program that KNOWS it will be dealing with PE-COFF files?
>> Sure, if we decided that this was the best way to handle this.
>IIUC the idea is to drop the entire .exe appending from rename, right?
>If so, we have to do all that .exe magic in mv(1) again, too.
>There's also install(1) which just "forgets" to append a .exe to
>installed executables if the -s option isn't given.  I think this is
>because install just copies and only the integrated strip call performs
>the rename which automagically appends the .exe suffix.  It would be
>nice if that could be fixed somehow as well, while we're at it.


So, the question is which approach solves the most problems?  It sounds
to me like maybe subversion is the exception rather than the rule here
but I could be wrong.


More information about the Cygwin-developers mailing list