This is the mail archive of the cygwin-developers mailing list for the Cygwin project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: 1.7.2?


On Mar  3 03:39, Larry Hall (Cygwin Developers) wrote:
> On 3/2/2010 4:33 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:

[... full quote stripped...]

> >That would break strip and in turn also install -s if $(EXEEXT) is
> >missing in a Makefile.  And on the commandline.  Sigh.  That was one
> >of the common scenarios I hoped to fix by this.
> 
> OK, here's a heretical question - Do we need to add '.exe' anymore?
> I know, 'cmd' still wants executable files with that extension (which
> I'll admit may be _the_ reason to keep it) but is there anything else
> that really needs it?

Not so heretical.  No, Cygwin doesn't need the .exe suffix and it
never needed one running on Windows NT.  As for 95/98/Me, that's
history, fortunately.  
Yes, we could go forward without .exe suffixes as far as Cygwin is
concerned, but there's a problem.

At one point you must start a Cygwin application for the first time,
either by starting it right from Windows Explorer, or by starting a
batch file (Cygwin.bat).  None of that works anymore since neither
Explorer nor cmd will recognize the Cygwin binary as executable.


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]