Re: No such file or directory

[Rick Rankin <rick_rankin@yahoo.com>]

Oh, I didn't think you were being critical, and on this particular issue, I
don't have a strong opinion one way or the other. Just playing devil's
advocate. ;-)

Another implementation option might be a switch to configure so that someone
could download the source and "easily" rebuild with the feature turned
off(assuming it's enabled by default). This might ease the support burden but
still give a user who has the know-how and inclination the opportunity to
disable the feature without having to hack the source.

Rick
--
Rick Rankin
rick_rankin@yahoo.com

--- Chris Faylor <cgf@cygnus.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 26, 2000 at 03:02:29PM -0800, Rick Rankin wrote:
> >I wasn't necessarily saying that it is the "wrong" solution, just that it
> needs
> >to be considered carefully. I wasn't aware that other POSIX layers (I assume
> >you are referring to UWIN or similar) have sucessfully implemented a similar
> >feature. I haven't thought it through, but on the surface, it does seem that
> it
> >could solve many compatability issues.
> 
> I didn't mean to sound like I was criticizing your opinion.  I guess I run
> that
> risk if I "quote" too many "things", like I did "below", though.
> 
> I've had wildly different opinions about this over the years, so I can easily
> argue either side.  :-)
> 
> >If you decide to implement it, should it be selectable via, for example, a
> >CYGWIN environment variable setting?
> 
> I guess we could do this.  This is YA thing where my opinion has evolved
> over the years.  Geoff Noer and I used to disagree about implementing
> more CYGWIN options.  Geoff thought that it was a good idea to be very
> conservative about adding new options and I thought that it didn't
> really matter.
> 
> These days, I agree with Geoff.  I don't know if his opinion has similarly
> reversed or not, though.  My main reason for limiting options is that it
> makes support a little harder.
> 
> Anyway, that said, it is worth considering an option.
> 
> Christopher Faylor
> Cygwin Engineering Manager
> Cygnus Solutions, a Red Hat company
> 
> >--- Chris Faylor <cgf@cygnus.com> wrote:
> >>On Sat, Mar 25, 2000 at 08:13:08PM -0800, Rick Rankin wrote:
> >>>It seems like most of the problems you refered to are related to make
> >>>and/or install.  Wouldn't it be better to "fix" these programs than to
> >>>build something like this into the core?
> >>
> >>The problem is already "fixed" in install but that doesn't "fix" the
> >>problem for packages that don't use "install".
> >>
> >>So, the only other alternative is to modify, cp and mv.  I guess we
> >>could also change every open in make but I don't think that's the right
> >>solution.
> >>
> >>Other POSIX-over-Windows packages seem to default to finding a ".exe".
> >>I don't think this would be too burdensome, myself.
> >>
> >>>--- Chris Faylor <cgf@cygnus.com> wrote:
> >>>>I wonder if it would really be a big deal if cygwin, by default, found
> >>>>a file "foo.exe" if there was no existing file "foo".
> >>>>
> >>>>We keep running into this problem and I wonder if implementing this in
> >>>>cygwin would solve more problems than it causes.
> 
> --
> Want to unsubscribe from this list?
> Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com
> 
> 

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com