30 Jun
2006
30 Jun
'06
10:27 p.m.
I'd like to restart this old thread
<http://www.winehq.com/hypermail/wine-users/2005/05/index.html#165>
which brings up the point that there are applications that hard-code
cmd.exe and (sometimes intentionally) ignore COMSPEC.
One example is Perl, which has the following comment in win32/win32.c:
/* we don't use COMSPEC here for two reasons:
* 1. the same reason perl on UNIX doesn't use SHELL--rampant and
* uncontrolled unportability of the ensuing scripts.
* 2. PERL5SHELL could be set to a shell that may not be fit for
* interactive use (which is what most programs look in COMSPEC
* for).
*/
I'm currently looking into what would be required for something like a
symlink to wcmd.exe, but at the same time I'm wondering the historical
reasons for choosing 'wcmd' and if it should be changed to just 'cmd'.
Thomas Kho
1 Jul
1 Jul
8:01 a.m.
"Thomas Kho" <tkho(a)ucla.edu> writes:
I'm currently looking into what would be required
for something like a
symlink to wcmd.exe, but at the same time I'm wondering the historical
reasons for choosing 'wcmd' and if it should be changed to just 'cmd'.
Yes, I think it should be renamed to cmd.exe, at this point it's
supposed to be a complete replacement.
--
Alexandre Julliard
julliard(a)winehq.org
8:36 a.m.
On Saturday 01 July 2006 01:01, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
Yes, I think it should be renamed to cmd.exe, at this
point it's
supposed to be a complete replacement.
Not sure if this is the best place to bring this up, but I'm not sure
it's "ready". The problem is it runs through the terminal the Wine was
exec'd
from. When Wine is run from the desktop manager's menu, or started in the
background (eg. wine foo.exe &), if wcmd is subsequently exec'd, it will
become completely unuseable since it has no input, and potentially no output,
terminal. It then has to be killed through the kill or killall command.
To be "ready", wouldn't it need to open up its own terminal window for input
and output in Wine's desktop space (eg. the virtual desktop if it's in use,
or the standard desktop)? It doesn't really feel like a Windows application
since it relies on the currently running terminal.
6 Jul
6 Jul
9:45 p.m.
On 7/1/06, Alexandre Julliard <julliard(a)winehq.org> wrote:
"Thomas Kho" <tkho(a)ucla.edu> writes:
It's a ~500k patch to rename programs/wcmd to programs/cmd so I want
to get this as right as possible prior to submitting a patch. How much
of wcmd's identity should remain? That is--should it be a wholesale
s/wcmd/cmd or should wcmd keep the name wcmd with just the executable
name changed?
Thomas Kho
I'm currently looking into what would be
required for something like a
symlink to wcmd.exe, but at the same time I'm wondering the historical
reasons for choosing 'wcmd' and if it should be changed to just 'cmd'.
Yes, I think it should be renamed to cmd.exe, at this point it's
supposed to be a complete replacement.
6510
days inactive
6516
days old
3 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Alexandre Julliard -
Chris -
Thomas Kho