1.7.2?

[Corinna Vinschen]

On Mar  4 09:53, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 04, 2010 at 12:39:43PM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >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?
> 
> Yes, I think so.

Ok, I've applied a patch which implements the above rules, as well as
the one suggested by Eric.  The funny thing is that strip still keeps
the .exe suffix when calling `strip foo' on a file "foo.exe", even
though the matching rule in rename has gone.  So it looks like no patch
to strip is required.

However, a patch to install is still desired because:

  $ ls foo*
  foo.exe
  $ install foo /bin
  $ ls /bin/foo*
  /bin/foo
  $ rm /bin/foo
  $ install -s foo /bin
  $ ls /bin/foo*
  /bin/foo


Corinna

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