X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_YE X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org X-Mail-Handler: Dyn Standard SMTP by Dyn X-Report-Abuse-To: abuse AT dyndns DOT com (see http://www.dyndns.com/services/sendlabs/outbound_abuse.html for abuse reporting information) X-MHO-User: U2FsdGVkX184nFal8itGMDCFFFrpjwrK Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2012 13:26:41 -0400 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: tar won't extract all files when a file with exe extension precedes the same without extension inside the archive Message-ID: <20120713172641.GA3399@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com References: <92B65842B4224F3FA65CE40F3608F7DF AT multiplay DOT co DOT uk> <20120712010353 DOT GB14112 AT ednor DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx> <447894CEE2E7427F8E0AFC5A206BAD92 AT multiplay DOT co DOT uk> <981681190 DOT 20120712160313 AT mtu-net DOT ru> <4FFED62A DOT 7060106 AT cygwin DOT com> <4FFEFE4B DOT 5060107 AT sister-shadow DOT de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: 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: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , 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 Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 09:20:11AM -0700, Andy Hall wrote: >>>2. Since this is a "Windows thing", is there some reason why the >>>execution of "file" or "file.exe" isn't handled as a special case in >>>the exec call (and all its flavors) and no place else? >> >>make, for example? If you have a rule that creates "foo" from foo.c, >>gcc will actually create "foo.exe". The next time you run make, it >>won't see "foo" and recreate "foo.exe", even if "foo.exe" is still up >>to date. >> >>With the special handling of .exe, when make checks for "foo", cygwin >>checks "foo" first, doesn't find anything, and then checks "foo.exe", >>returning its result to make and make is happy. >> >>Anothen example: A script tries to execute "foo" from . , cygwin >>executes "foo.exe" instead and the script thinks "foo" exists, but a >>subsequent "touch foo" (or "rm foo" or whatever) fails, which is >>massively inconsistent. >> >>I consider the current handling of .exe files quite consistent. >> >>Or, in other words, when forced to choose between the two pains, I'd >>rather endure this. > >Well, this seems to be something that has to be addressed specifically >in make and gcc (and other similar places). If make has a rule to >create "foo" from foo.c, then that is what it should do! Dennis Ritchie >would turn over in his grave is he heard that commands like tar, rsync, >zip, ... were not idempotent WRT at least filenames and contents, let >alone permissions. I didn't know Dennis Ritchie but I'll bet that, if we were still alive, he would actually be intelligent enough and pragmatic enough to listen to rationales for a behavior and, if the problem really interested him enough, he'd undoubtedly do more than just whine. He'd offer solutions. I think this subject has been run into the ground. Although I'll grant you that positing the in-grave behavior of Dennis Ritchie is new, it isn't helpful, and there is nothing else in this tedious discussion which has offered any useful new insight, let alone actual code changes. Heaven forbid that someone would actually look at the Cygwin code and make informed comments. So, everyone, please let this drop unless you have a constructive suggestion. This is your mailing list administrator speaking. -- 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