This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the Cygwin project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: symlinks

Christopher Faylor wrote:

> On Sat, Nov 10, 2001 at 11:29:09PM -0500, Charles Wilson wrote:
>>Robert Collins wrote:
>>>When extracting tarballs, should setup create 'native' symlinks or magic
>>>cookie symlinks?
>>I thought the magic cookie (!<symlink>target) symlinks were deprecated. 
>>Currently, "ln -s" makes "special" .lnk shortcuts; I think setup should do 
>>the same -- there should be no difference between the following scenarios:
> They're not exactly deprecated.  I think Corinna has had second thoughts
> about the current method, actually.  Or, maybe she just didn't like
> having cygwin interpret native Windows .lnk files.

Well, the old style symlinks, relying as they do on having the "system" bit 
set, don't work correctly on shares, IIRC.

However, I agree that cygwin shouldn't try to interpret "normal" windows 
.lnk files -- but I thought Corinna put heuristics in so that cygwin 
wouldn't do that.

> I don't anticipate that they will ever go away, so I think we should stick
> with having setup.exe create the "old style" method.  It will keep the
> code size down in setup.exe.
> Or, maybe this will become a non-issue when/if setup.exe is split in two
> since we'll be able to use cygwin tar at that point.

That's true.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]