Mail Archives: cygwin/2001/03/01/11:41:48
On Thu, Mar 01, 2001 at 09:58:01AM +0100, Bernard Dautrevaux wrote:
>> -----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.
>
>>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...
...or not use Windows symlinks at all, as I was proposing.
>> >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...
Sure you can. It depends on how much effort you want to go to.
cgf
--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
- Raw text -