[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: executable extensions

On Mon, Jun 09, 2003 at 01:57:21PM +0200, Jeremie Koenig wrote:
>For some time i'm trying to rebuild debian packages for use with FreeDOS
>(using DJGPP as the compiler), and I feel quite like John regarding the
>.exe suffix appended by the compiler. (i modified stubify not to add
>the suffix, and it works a bit more, now)
>On Mon, Jun 09, 2003 at 03:34:21PM +1000, Robert Collins wrote:
>> On Mon, 2003-06-09 at 15:09, ${john}$ wrote:
>> > The .exe suffix screws things up. A lot of packages identify the target 
>> > as Cygwin, and your executables then get that extension.
>In my case, configure scripts run a test and find out that a.exe is the
>default output, then deduce that a .exe suffix should be appended.
>Tweaking the toolchain not to output .exe files has been enough for me.
>(no need to play with config.guess).

So, you're producing programs that are unrunnable under Windows 9x.

>> > (...)
>> Don't do this. The .exe suffix should stay. There have been many long
>> discussions on this elsewhere, I won't repeat them now.
>On Mon, Jun 09, 2003 at 07:18:56PM +1000, Robert Collins wrote:
>> Up to you. Follow the lead or not. It's your time. I don't have the
>> energy or time to debate it.
>It seems like we're going the wrong way. But could you please point us
>to some list archives or anything where this is debated, so we can grasp
>the thing ?

How about the *cygwin*mailing*list*?

Why would you assume that you are working in a vacuum and stumbling
across issues that have never been raised before?  Cygwin is not exactly
a new project.  Don't you think that issues like "The .exe suffix is
inconvenient" might just possibly have been raised before?

That is not to say that there aren't exciting clever new ways of doing
things but ignoring years of collective discussion and stumbling over
the same issues here doesn't make much sense.


Reply to: