Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
X-Envelope-Sender-Is:	Andrej DOT Borsenkow AT mow DOT siemens DOT ru (at relayer goliath.siemens.de)
From:	"Andrej Borsenkow" <Andrej DOT Borsenkow AT mow DOT siemens DOT ru>
To:	<cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
Subject:	RE: New symlinks.
Date:	Tue, 27 Feb 2001 20:40:48 +0300
Message-ID:	<001801c0a0e4$6b64ce10$21c9ca95@mow.siemens.ru>
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-Priority:	3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority:	Normal
X-Mailer:	Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0)
In-Reply-To:	<20010227114332.F10689@redhat.com>
X-MimeOLE:	Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
Importance:	Normal

> >I think it's correct behaviour. Cygwin doesn't show the .lnk
> >suffix by itself but nevertheless, to return a `file not found'
> >on `ls foo.lnk' wouldn't be correct. It's simply the truth:
> >The file `foo.lnk' exists and is a symlink.
>
> Again, it is surprising behavior.  Such a file would not exist on UNIX.
> I personally think that we should hide implementation details like
> "Oh yeah, we added a .lnk extension to all of our symbolic links"
> from the user.  There is no reason for them to know or care about
> this detail.
>

Hmm ... how should ``ls -L'' and lstat() behave then? Should they show just
``foo'' or ``foo.lnk''? (No, I do not know the answer)

-andrej


--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

- Raw text -