1.7.2?
Corinna Vinschen
corinna-cygwin@cygwin.com
Wed Mar 3 09:21:00 GMT 2010
On Mar 3 03:39, Larry Hall (Cygwin Developers) wrote:
> On 3/2/2010 4:33 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
[... full quote stripped...]
> >That would break strip and in turn also install -s if $(EXEEXT) is
> >missing in a Makefile. And on the commandline. Sigh. That was one
> >of the common scenarios I hoped to fix by this.
>
> OK, here's a heretical question - Do we need to add '.exe' anymore?
> I know, 'cmd' still wants executable files with that extension (which
> I'll admit may be _the_ reason to keep it) but is there anything else
> that really needs it?
Not so heretical. No, Cygwin doesn't need the .exe suffix and it
never needed one running on Windows NT. As for 95/98/Me, that's
history, fortunately.
Yes, we could go forward without .exe suffixes as far as Cygwin is
concerned, but there's a problem.
At one point you must start a Cygwin application for the first time,
either by starting it right from Windows Explorer, or by starting a
batch file (Cygwin.bat). None of that works anymore since neither
Explorer nor cmd will recognize the Cygwin binary as executable.
Corinna
--
Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat
More information about the Cygwin-developers
mailing list