This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
On Sun, Nov 11, 2001 at 03:44:57PM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Christopher Faylor" <email@example.com>
>> I don't anticipate that they will ever go away, so I think we should
>> with having setup.exe create the "old style" method. It will keep the
>> code size down in setup.exe.
>Actually it won't - we already create .lnk files for the start menu. (It
>was aiming to reduce that overhead that caused my question.
AFAIK, it isn't creating cygwin links. It's creating Windows lnk files,
>>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. >
>Not really, because the inital bootstrap may well have shortcuts in it.
If you say so. I don't see why it would. That would seem to be counter
to the reason for splitting up setup.exe. I thought that you'd want
to have all of the cygwin intelligence in the second half.
So, I guess I don't have an opinion on this. I should point out that
the "new" links will actually work better on remote shares so maybe
that's enough of an argument for them.
I'd like to get Corinna's opinion on this, though.