Regression in .exe extension handling

[Cyrille Lefevre]

Le 29/06/2010 01:16, Eric Blake a écrit :
> On 06/28/2010 05:08 PM, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
>> It is not unusual for mono packages to create a wrapper script (to be
>> installed in PATH) in the same directory as an assembly (which has .exe
>> suffix and is installed out of PATH), which uncovered a regression using
>> the 20100622 snapshot:
>>
>> echo script>  foo
>> echo executable>  foo.exe
>> mkdir bar
>> install foo bar/foo
>
> The problem is here - should install be open()ing "foo" (the script) or
> "foo.exe" (the executable) as the source file for copying into bar/foo?

well, how about the use of the O_BINARY flag to make the decision ?
if both files exists and O_BINARY is specified, open the .exe one,
the other one otherwise ?

> Since it is never a good idea to have both an .exe and a script of the
> same name in the same directory, is this really a regression, or just

why? many scripts use this assertion, they usually are called 
wrappers... :-)

> bad behavior on mono's part?  Remember, libtool was recently changed to
> avoid exactly this ambiguity.  Or should I be trying to patch coreutils
> (and/or someone patch cygwin1.dll) to try harder to open the script
> instead of the .exe when the suffix-less file conflicts with the .exe?

easy for reading (':' or '#!', rem, etc. :-), does "file" is implemented 
as part of the cygwin1.dll. not so easy for writing...

Regards,

Cyrille Lefevre
-- 
mailto:Cyrille.Lefevre-lists@laposte.net



--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple