cygwin use report: vexec, UML, off-topic X rave

[lhall@pop.ma.ultranet.com]

Original Message:
-----------------
From: Christopher Faylor cgf@redhat.com
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 15:26:34 -0400
To: cygwin@cygwin.com
Subject: Re: cygwin use report: vexec, UML, off-topic X rave


On Mon, Oct 21, 2002 at 12:55:04PM -0400, lhall@pop.ma.ultranet.com wrote:
>Hi David,
>
>I just wanted to make two comments based on your observations below.
>
>  1. File extensions are already optional on NT-based platforms. 
>Originally,
>     Cygwin didn't enforce ".exe" for exectuables.  This was added for
9x/Me
>     support and will likely remain until these systems fall into disuse.

Cygwin doesn't enforce .exe for executables on any platform, AFAIK.  Trying
to
run an executable without a .exe on Windows 9x just doesn't work, AFAIK.

<snip>

Right.  Poor choice of wording.  ".exe" was added to executables generated
by
gcc for Cygwin to permit them to run on 9x/Me platforms.  Individuals that 
don't run on 9x/Me and that want to remove the ".exe"s from their utilities 
are free to, assuming they don't mind always running those utilities from
the
Cygwin shells.

Also, it's worthwhile to point out that Cygwin didn't need to do anything
special to get executables without an extension to run as executables in 
Cygwin shells.  This is an NT/W2K/XP feature.  It's just not one that is 
generally used by Windows (i.e. it isn't available to cmd.exe, etc).

Larry

--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .



--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/