Mail Archives: cygwin/2001/03/01/04:17:03
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christopher Faylor [mailto:cgf AT redhat DOT com]
> Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2001 1:18 AM
> To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
> Subject: Re: New symlinks.
<skipped>
>
> >> The bottom line is I don't care a fig about what is "correct". I'm
> >> concerned about surprising people. I'm not concerned
> about exposing
> >the
> >> ".lnk" for power users if it causes confusion for the vast
> majority of
> >> people who are not power users. I'm concerned about increasing
> >mailing
> >> list traffic by 10% when it could be avoided.
> >
> >Ok, so when you get 100's of emails. "I made a symlink on my samba
> >share, then I went to delete it via bash on the samba server and I
> >couldn't find the file", you'll be _glad_ there is no sign
> within cygwin
> >that a .lnk was created.
>
> Those kinds of emails are actually pretty rare. And,
> actually, we could
> work around this problem now by just checking if a Cygwin
> symbolic link
> file is read-only, just like we do for .lnk files.
In fact I think the problem is not this one; it's rather:
on my cygwin machine, on a samba share:
cygwin$ ln -s foo bar
later on, on th esamba server:
linux$ find . -name 'foo' | xargs rm
the back on cygwin:
cygwin$ ls foo
foo
Hey it still exists; I deleted it on the samba share without any error! (of
course, find on the samba server do NOT match foo with foo.lnk) This used to
work and I don't understand what's happening...
The ONLY way out of this is to give the user SOME way to see that foo is in
fact foo.lnk...
>
> >If you don't show somewhere in cygwin that it is a .lnk file may well
> >end up surprising them anyway.
>
> I don't know why. If you can do all of your manipulation of the file
> without the extension then there is no reason to care about the
> extension.
Problem is that cygwin is NOT an OS; it's a layer in another world... so you
can't hide .lnk in ALL cases...
>
> >> >My vote: we expose the.lnk at at least one place in the
> interface. We
> >> >also make it interoperate seamlessly for scripts/batch files etc.
> >>
> >> I'm not sure what "interoperate seamlessly" means. It
> would be nice
> >> if people would try what Corinna has implemented before offering
> >opinions.
> >> Or, maybe you have done this and are just reiterating Corinna's
> >> implementation.
> >>
> >By interopreate seamlessly I mean, don't break shell scripts
> or programs
> >that use lnks. (Obviously thats the goal, what I what trying
> to say is
> >'show the .lnk somewhere, don't break anything to achieve that).
>
> Um, yeah. That's a pretty obvious goal. Unfortunately, it definitely
> means not exposing the .lnk extension (unless *possibly* it
> is explicitly
> asked for).
I think that's what Corinna implement, and it's quite satisfactory.
Regards,
Bernard
PS: Note that I'm NOT arguing against Corinna's opinion that "ls -l foo.lnk"
should show the symlink, but against other's opinions that it should answer
"file not found". I can't check as I just want to emphasize what I think it
should be (or continue to be).
--------------------------------------------
Bernard Dautrevaux
Microprocess Ingenierie
97 bis, rue de Colombes
92400 COURBEVOIE
FRANCE
Tel: +33 (0) 1 47 68 80 80
Fax: +33 (0) 1 47 88 97 85
e-mail: dautrevaux AT microprocess DOT com
b DOT dautrevaux AT usa DOT net
--------------------------------------------
--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
- Raw text -