X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 10:43:37 +0200
From: Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: Regression in .exe extension handling
Message-ID: <20100629084337.GA8163@calimero.vinschen.de>
Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References: <1277766496 DOT 7412 DOT 18 DOT camel AT YAAKOV04> <4C292D35 DOT 6000005 AT redhat DOT com> <1277780070 DOT 7412 DOT 231 DOT camel AT YAAKOV04>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1277780070.7412.231.camel@YAAKOV04>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:cygwin-unsubscribe-archive-cygwin=delorie DOT com AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com

On Jun 28 21:54, Yaakov S wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-06-28 at 17:16 -0600, Eric Blake wrote:
> > 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?
> >  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
> > bad behavior on mono's part? 
> 
> This is a regression: it worked just fine with earlier 1.7.x releases.
> 
> > Remember, libtool was recently changed to avoid exactly this ambiguity.
> 
> This is different: neither the wrapper nor assembly are executed in the
> builddir; they are just created there and installed into different
> locations.
> 
> > 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?
> 
> It's definitely a bug (or two) somewhere:
> 
> * "install foo" correctly installs 'foo' but the presence of foo.exe
> apparently fools something to add the .exe.
> 
> * the .exe is being added when the file is clearly not a PE executable,
> nor a link thereto.
> 
> Whether these bugs are coming from coreutils or cygwin, or both, I do
> not know.

It doesn't look like a problem in Cygwin.  Strace shows there's an
open("bar/foo.exe") call to create the file.

I assume it's the logic in install along the lines of

  stat("foo") shows that "foo" exists?
  yes -> stat("foo.exe") shows that "foo.exe" exists?
         yes -> so the original file is called "foo.exe".

Maybe the test should check for the entire struct stat to be identical
before making this decision?  Just an idea...


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