Re: Request for Junctions be treated consistently

[Andrey Repin <anrdaemon at yandex dot ru>]

Greetings, Corinna Vinschen!

>> I don't think your original concern is as big a problem as you
>> think, as is indicated by the above setup on linux.
>> 
>> I.e. is there some other reason to not treat "linkd" mounts
>> the same as "mountvol" mounts -- in a manner equivalent to linux's
>> 'bind' mounts?
>> 
>> I.e. I don't see that that linkd which creates a junction-mount
>> point, should be treated as a symlink.  It would provide valuable
>> benefit in cygwin terms in being able to setup directories at
>> multiple place like 'bind' does on linux, and be resistant to being
>> overwritten like symlinks.

> Look, directory reparse points are, by and large, symlinks to another,
> real directory entry.  The directory has a primary path, which is its
> own path under which it has been created, and the reparse point is just
> a pointer to this directory.  If that's not a symlink, what is?

Uhm, there's two ways to look at it.
You may call it a "symlink", but in fact, Linux equivalent of a reparse point
is a mount --bind, or, perhaps, a block-type device mounted at specific
directory. It's a [literal] filesystem junction (in common meaning of
"junction"), while symlink is more like conventional language construct.
I.e., you can make a reparse point to local resource, that was not
assigned a drive letter. Enough that it's a local filesystem, and you know
it's UUID.
But you can't make a reparse point to a network share, for example, even if
that share is mapped to a drive letter. But you can make a [native] symlink to
it. 


--
WBR,
Andrey Repin (anrdaemon@yandex.ru) 07.04.2014, <21:55>

Sorry for my terrible english...


--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple