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-li...@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
