Re: .exe magic reloaded 2
Greetings, Al! You didn't read my reply to the end, but I accept your explanation. Still, that specific point of code is suspicious for my taste of fool-proof'ness. Sure you could reflect about the length of minor versions here. But does that address the original topic? :-) After python 2.7 there is 3.x AFAIK. As I said, I'm aware of that. -- WBR, Andrey Repin (anrdae...@freemail.ru) 16.09.2010, 15:07 Sorry for my terrible english... -- 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
Re: .exe magic reloaded 2
Hello, I have another interesting case where .exe magic doesn't work as transparently as one would expect. I have a file python2.6.exe. A script tries to find it with ls python2.?. It is not found. Here the script needs a modification to work with Cygwin, but we can't really say that there is a bug in the script. Al -- 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
Re: .exe magic reloaded 2
On Sep 15 13:40, Al wrote: Hello, I have another interesting case where .exe magic doesn't work as transparently as one would expect. I have a file python2.6.exe. A script tries to find it with ls python2.?. It is not found. Here the script needs a modification to work with Cygwin, but we can't really say that there is a bug in the script. True. In theory we would have to remove .exe and .lnk suffixes from directory listings as well, but that was never the case in Cygwin. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Project Co-Leader cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat -- 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
Re: .exe magic reloaded 2
True. In theory we would have to remove .exe and .lnk suffixes from directory listings as well, but that was never the case in Cygwin. That's the way it has always been... isn't a strong argument in development. I guess there are some other reasons to do it this way. If not one should really consider to improve it to make Cygwin still more Unix compatible. Al -- 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
Re: .exe magic reloaded 2
On Sep 15 15:38, Al wrote: True. In theory we would have to remove .exe and .lnk suffixes from directory listings as well, but that was never the case in Cygwin. That's the way it has always been... isn't a strong argument in development. It wasn't an argument, it was just a description of the state. I guess there are some other reasons to do it this way. If not one should really consider to improve it to make Cygwin still more Unix compatible. I'd love to drop the .exe suffix from readdir(), I'm just not sure what unwelcome side-effects we create. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Project Co-Leader cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat -- 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
Re: .exe magic reloaded 2
On Sep 15 15:50, Corinna Vinschen wrote: On Sep 15 15:38, Al wrote: True. In theory we would have to remove .exe and .lnk suffixes from directory listings as well, but that was never the case in Cygwin. That's the way it has always been... isn't a strong argument in development. It wasn't an argument, it was just a description of the state. I guess there are some other reasons to do it this way. If not one should really consider to improve it to make Cygwin still more Unix compatible. I'd love to drop the .exe suffix from readdir(), I'm just not sure what unwelcome side-effects we create. For instance, this one: Either we always remove the .exe suffix from a file, or we have to check for each file with a .exe suffix, whether it's executable or not. In the first case, you get something like this: $ echo foo bar.exe $ ls bar* bar $ Fortunately: $ ls bar.exe bar.exe However, dependent of the intelligence of a script or application, the suddenly missing suffix could result in trouble. In the second case, the extra test for executability would be a big performance hit, especially if you call `ls /usr/bin'. And you know how we already have a lot of users kicking our asses for Cygwin's performance. So, whatever we do will result in problems for another group of users. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Project Co-Leader cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat -- 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
Re: .exe magic reloaded 2
I'd love to drop the .exe suffix from readdir(), I'm just not sure what unwelcome side-effects we create. Yes, that's always the point. All programs would break, that are only build against the .exe suffix. Like mine after patching it. :-) Don't know if Cygwin has a testing state to fix those side-effects before everything goes public. The listing with .exe extensions also has an informative value for the human reader of the list, that would be lost. Al -- 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
Re: .exe magic reloaded 2
For instance, this one: Either we always remove the .exe suffix from a file, or we have to check for each file with a .exe suffix, whether it's executable or not. Probably without checking it. No sane program would use the .exe suffix as extension of a mere textfile. What would be the ideal approach, without thinking of backward issues? How about this? 1.) When a file is made executable .exe is appended, but only visible from Windows API. 2.) When the last execution bit is removed the .exe suffix is also removed. 3.) Using the .exe suffix from the Cygwin API always gives an error. 4.) Hence: You never see this suffix on the Cygwin API. Al -- 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
Re: .exe magic reloaded 2
On 9/15/2010 12:23 PM, Al wrote: For instance, this one: Either we always remove the .exe suffix from a file, or we have to check for each file with a .exe suffix, whether it's executable or not. Probably without checking it. No sane program would use the .exe suffix as extension of a mere textfile. What would be the ideal approach, without thinking of backward issues? How about this? 1.) When a file is made executable .exe is appended, but only visible from Windows API. 2.) When the last execution bit is removed the .exe suffix is also removed. 3.) Using the .exe suffix from the Cygwin API always gives an error. 4.) Hence: You never see this suffix on the Cygwin API. How would this work with non-Cygwin programs? They wouldn't be handled under (1). -- Larry Hall http://www.rfk.com RFK Partners, Inc. (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office 216 Dalton Rd. (508) 893-9889 - FAX Holliston, MA 01746 _ A: Yes. Q: Are you sure? A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. Q: Why is top posting annoying in email? -- 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
Re: .exe magic reloaded 2
Greetings, Al! I have another interesting case where .exe magic doesn't work as transparently as one would expect. I have a file python2.6.exe. A script tries to find it with ls python2.?. It is not found. I'm fairly certain, that the script is bugged in this specific case. It should be looking for python2.* instead. Minor version could have any length... potentially. (And yes, I know, there wouldn't be .10 for now) Here the script needs a modification to work with Cygwin, but we can't really say that there is a bug in the script. -- WBR, Andrey Repin (anrdae...@freemail.ru) 15.09.2010, 21:18 Sorry for my terrible english... -- 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
Re: .exe magic reloaded 2
1.) When a file is made executable .exe is appended, but only visible from Windows API. How would this work with non-Cygwin programs? They wouldn't be handled under (1). Depends on how you install or mount them. But yes, as a prerequest there would be two types of filessystem handling. The normal windows one, always with .exe suffix stored into the filename of executables. When mounting foreign unix filesystems no .exe magic would be used at all on them. Al -- 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
Re: .exe magic reloaded 2
I'm fairly certain, that the script is bugged in this specific case. It should be looking for python2.* instead. Minor version could have any length... potentially. (And yes, I know, there wouldn't be .10 for now) Definitly not. It would also find python2.6-config which is not wanted. It want's to find python2.x and nothing else. The script is a normal POSIX script and has no knowlege of Cygwins existance at all and any of it's special behaviour. Al -- 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
Re: .exe magic reloaded 2
Greetings, Al! For instance, this one: Either we always remove the .exe suffix from a file, or we have to check for each file with a .exe suffix, whether it's executable or not. Probably without checking it. No sane program would use the .exe suffix as extension of a mere textfile. What would be the ideal approach, without thinking of backward issues? How about this? 1.) When a file is made executable .exe is appended, but only visible from Windows API. 2.) When the last execution bit is removed the .exe suffix is also removed. 3.) Using the .exe suffix from the Cygwin API always gives an error. 4.) Hence: You never see this suffix on the Cygwin API. May I point to the fact that not only binary files could be executable? Shell(both), Perl, PHP scripts... (Wish we could set short file name longer than 8.3 ... that would be wonderful and semi-transparent solution...) -- WBR, Andrey Repin (anrdae...@freemail.ru) 15.09.2010, 21:21 Sorry for my terrible english... -- 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
Re: .exe magic reloaded 2
Greetings, Al! I'm fairly certain, that the script is bugged in this specific case. It should be looking for python2.* instead. Minor version could have any length... potentially. (And yes, I know, there wouldn't be .10 for now) Definitly not. It would also find python2.6-config which is not wanted. It want's to find python2.x and nothing else. The script is a normal POSIX script and has no knowlege of Cygwins existance at all and any of it's special behaviour. You didn't read my reply to the end, but I accept your explanation. Still, that specific point of code is suspicious for my taste of fool-proof'ness. -- WBR, Andrey Repin (anrdae...@freemail.ru) 15.09.2010, 21:37 Sorry for my terrible english... -- 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
Re: .exe magic reloaded 2
You didn't read my reply to the end, but I accept your explanation. Still, that specific point of code is suspicious for my taste of fool-proof'ness. Sure you could reflect about the length of minor versions here. But does that address the original topic? :-) After python 2.7 there is 3.x AFAIK. Al -- 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
