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
"Thomas Kho" tkho@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.
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.
On 7/1/06, Alexandre Julliard julliard@winehq.org wrote:
"Thomas Kho" tkho@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.
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
-
Alexandre Julliard -
Chris -
Thomas Kho