[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: bug??!!!

From: Bob Proulx
Subject: Re: bug??!!!
Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2002 17:50:09 -0700
User-agent: Mutt/1.4i

address@hidden <address@hidden> [2002-11-02 17:42:06 +0100]:
> I would  report the following problem with cygwin:

If you would be so kind as to report cygwin difficulties directly to
the cygwin folks that would be much appreciated.  Please start at this
web address.  None of us here have the ability to debug your problem
since we don't use cygwin ourselves.  Thanks.


> EXECUTABLES   = getorb lodr mdate convdate
> as you can see this executables have names without the exestension .exe.
> When I compile my source code the executables generated have the following
> names
> getorb.exe lodr.exe mdate.exe convdate.exe

I assume that something in your code of your Makefile is adding the
file name suffix extension .exe to those names.

> This causes an error when I try to install these executables by
> using the line:
> because mv expects the name of the executables as:
> getorb lodr mdate convdate
> and not with the extension ".exe"

Yes.  That is the correct behavior.

> If I change the line with the following:
> the error doesn't occur.

How odd!  There should be no difference between cp and mv.  It makes
me think you have one version of mv and a completely different version
of cp.

> It seems that cp is capable to "understand" that .exe is omitted.

How odd!  Not behavior I would have expected anywhere.  But perhaps in
the DOS world that is modified to do that since programs will have
extensions there that won't exist on any other operating system.

But regardless it seems that the versions of cp and mv you are using
are different.  Perhaps you have a funny version of cp which is
different from the other utilities?


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]