Sender: rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk
Message-ID: <3AA28F48.B29175EB@phekda.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 18:54:00 +0000
From: Richard Dawe <rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.17 i586)
X-Accept-Language: de,fr
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: Fileutils 4.0 port and ginstall
References: <200103041434 DOT PAA07837 AT mother DOT ludd DOT luth DOT se> <7458-Sun04Mar2001180014+0200-eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com

Hello.

Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> Please note that whatever trickery I put inside ginstall, it had only
> one purpose: to make commands such as "ginstall foo /usr/local/bin/foo"
> silently DTRT, i.e. create /usr/local/bin/foo.exe.

OK, I've increased the number of cases where ginstall should DTRT.
Unstubbed COFF, stubbed COFF and any MZ format executables are created
with an .exe extension appended to the target filename. Since .com files
don't have a header, they will be treated like ordinary files.

One thing that worries me: should foo be created at the destination as
well as foo.exe? That way we do what ginstall has been asked to do, as
well as creating an executable that can be run by command.com, etc.
 
> Given that, why would we want "ginstall command.com b" do anything
> specific, one way or the other?  Why would someone do such a... how
> should I put it gently?.. weird thing?
> 
> I think if the user wants the destination file have a specific
> extension, she should kindly specify that extension explicitly.

I think I misunderstood your original comment and got myself really
confused. I agree with you.

Thanks, bye, Rich =]

-- 
Richard Dawe <richdawe AT bigfoot DOT com> http://www.bigfoot.com/~richdawe/ 

"The soul is the mirror of an indestructible universe."
--- Gottfried W. Leibniz