Re: executable extensions
On Mon, Jun 09, 2003 at 10:53:22AM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 09, 2003 at 01:57:21PM +0200, Jeremie Koenig wrote:
> >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.
They are runnable by DJGPP programs only, since the DJGPP libc uses its
own program loading stuff, which lauches DJGPP's COFF executables
directly. The underlying kernel doesn't count, would it be FreeDOS,
Windows 95 or anything else providing a DOS implementation.
In my case it doesn't count, since I only want to use a DOS kernel,
nothing else. A SHELL=/bin/sh in config.sys is enough, since it doesn't
insist on a .exe or .com extension, at least in FreeDOS.
Another possibility would be to create a /init.exe stub which would
launch /bin/sh or something.
(this is a bit off-topic here, but since you ask ;)
> >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*?
Yes. :)
> Why would you assume that you are working in a vacuum and stumbling
> across issues that have never been raised before?
I don't, and my request really wasn't ironic/offensive/... I hadn't
touched a DOS/Windows for years, and rediscovered it thanks to FreeDOS
and DJGPP, which allow me ot run my beloved programs with my full
beloved freedom.
> 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.
Agreed.
--
Jeremie Koenig <sprite@sprite.fr.eu.org>
Reply to: