Re: Fun with cp -R error when both foo and foo.exe exist

Right. My thinking was that the auto-suffix probing makes sense when running or checking for a program, but not when creating a program. (I could be wrong, and I imagine if I actually compiled and tested the hack I'd find out pretty quickly if it was at least obviously wrong.) O_BINARY doesn't n

Re: Fun with cp -R error when both foo and foo.exe exist

On 10/9/18 11:21 AM, Dan Kegel wrote: On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 5:03 AM Eric Blake wrote: whether someone patches the cygwin dll or cp, it seems like some rather hairy code for what is normally a rare corner case, so it probably won't happen unless someone actually contributes a patch. Right. H

Re: Fun with cp -R error when both foo and foo.exe exist

On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 5:03 AM Eric Blake wrote: > whether someone patches the cygwin dll or cp, it seems like some rather > hairy code for what is normally a rare corner case, so it probably won't > happen unless someone actually contributes a patch. Right. Here's a completely untested guess pa

Re: Fun with cp -R error when both foo and foo.exe exist

to occur with anything else changing directory contents in parallel. Perhaps you could even argue that readdir() should visit 'foo' and 'foo.exe' in a particular order, no matter whether the native ordering would display them in the opposite order. But in general, whether

Re: Fun with cp -R error when both foo and foo.exe exist

Am 08.10.2018 um 23:24 schrieb Dan Kegel: A nice workaround might be for the cygwin version of cp could arrange to wait to create .exe files until after any potential non-suffixed file has been processed... not sure how easy that would be. Apologies if this has already been discussed. - Dan

Fun with cp -R error when both foo and foo.exe exist

Everybody who uses cygwin knows that if foo and foo.exe exist, you can do cp foo bar cp foo.exe bar.exe but not cp foo.exe bar.exe cp foo bar because of the unavoidable magic in cygwin that lets you execute foo when you really mean foo.exe. Well, it just bit me again during a buildbot try

Re: likely stupid question but name conflicts with foo and foo.exe?

rectory and apparently I have foo and foo.exe in one dir but foo is a directory. This is by design. foo.exe is recognized as foo to allow to start apps without the dreaded suffix. Since Cygwin 1.7.0, foo and foo.exe are treated as identical. You can't have a dir "foo" and a file &

Re: likely stupid question but name conflicts with foo and foo.exe?

a directory >> and apparently I have foo and foo.exe in one dir but foo is a directory. > > This is by design. foo.exe is recognized as foo to allow to start apps > without the dreaded suffix. Since Cygwin 1.7.0, foo and foo.exe are > treated as identical. You can't have a dir

Re: likely stupid question but name conflicts with foo and foo.exe?

On Sep 7 09:00, mike marchywka wrote: > Hi, > I'm trying to copy of bunch of files from debian over to windoze using scp -r. > This was working fine except for one error where it complains foo is > not a directory > and apparently I have foo and foo.exe in one dir but foo is a

likely stupid question but name conflicts with foo and foo.exe?

Hi, I'm trying to copy of bunch of files from debian over to windoze using scp -r. This was working fine except for one error where it complains foo is not a directory and apparently I have foo and foo.exe in one dir but foo is a directory. I think this replicates the problem. It seems that

Re: test -e cannot distinguish between foo and foo.exe

oo exists without also looking at foo.exe? > Does this count as a bug in test? > It is a feature, not a bug, caused by cygwin's .exe magic. Bash cannot[1] distinguish between foo and foo.exe because stat(2) does not distinguish. On non-managed mount, checking for 'foo.' is

Re: test -e cannot distinguish between foo and foo.exe

On Mon, Dec 19, 2005 at 03:22:54PM +, Cliff Hones wrote: >Volker Quetschke wrote: >> I noticed the following behaviour: (found by my favorite testcase ;) ) >> >> $ rm -rf foo* ; touch foo.exe >> >> $ test -e foo && echo found foo >> found foo >> >> $ test -e foo.exe && echo found foo.exe >>

Re: test -e cannot distinguish between foo and foo.exe

Volker Quetschke wrote: > I noticed the following behaviour: (found by my favorite testcase ;) ) > > $ rm -rf foo* ; touch foo.exe > > $ test -e foo && echo found foo > found foo > > $ test -e foo.exe && echo found foo.exe > found foo.exe > > Hmm, how can I test if foo exists without also looki

test -e cannot distinguish between foo and foo.exe

I noticed the following behaviour: (found by my favorite testcase ;) ) $ rm -rf foo* ; touch foo.exe $ test -e foo && echo found foo found foo $ test -e foo.exe && echo found foo.exe found foo.exe Hmm, how can I test if foo exists without also looking at foo.exe? Does this count as a bug in te

Re: foo and foo.exe

Works for me in 1.5.13-1. On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 18:07:55 -0500, Jennifer Lai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > Has the newer release of cygwin fixed problem stated in this thread, > http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2003-10/msg00378.html -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe

foo and foo.exe

Hi, Has the newer release of cygwin fixed problem stated in this thread, http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2003-10/msg00378.html Thanks, Jennifer -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cy