Mail Archives: cygwin/1999/03/29/19:58:55
Mysterious!
Did I say anything, what has bothered you?
"Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc)" wrote:
>
> Let me make my final points:
>
> 1. I guess I don't understand why you threw the issue of hard links into the
> discussion if your change had nothing to do with them really, which was
> the root of what I was trying to get at.
Sounds like "Shut up, babe!" to me...
Unfortunately, it sounds, as if you don't understand the point, too.
> 2. Your comment about how mv works with "mv foo.exe foo" is not quite on
> target. I agree that this is not correct functionality. However, it
> was added quite a while ago simply because people wanted it.
The effect is the same.
> 3. If everyone agrees that the best thing to do is modify "mv" and this is
> the only change necessary to make sure "mv" doesn't break as a result,
> how come its not part of the change? Shouldn't the goal be to improve
> Cygwin rather than taking one step forward and then one step back?
The change was invented in a b21 winsup snapshot. This isn't a official
release and has nothing to do with the implementation of GNU fileutils.
This is another point.
Corinna
--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
- Raw text -