Mail Archives: cygwin/2001/03/01/13:55:23
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc) [mailto:lhall AT rfk DOT com]
> Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2001 6:51 PM
> To: Robert A McDougall; cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
> Subject: Re: New symlinks
>
>
> At 12:28 PM 3/1/2001, Robert A McDougall wrote:
> >On Wed, 28 Feb 2001 at 18:38:11 -0500 Christopher Faylor wrote:
> >
> > > For what gain? So that users can create symlinks that
> could be used
> > > from Windows? I am wondering if the gain is worth the price.
> >
> >What he said!
> >
He said he's not sure it's worth the trouble to try to allow native Windows
programs and Cygwin programs to work together nicely. I agree it's SOME
trouble; however I'm not sure this "vanishing" .lnk extension should be seen
as big trouble. I agree this is some trouble, and that we will probably have
some questions in the mailing list about "why is foo.lnk listed as foo" or
why can't I create foo" (with "when foo.lnk is there" probably omitted) but
tha'ts not worst (and in fact a lot simpler) than the trouble we already
have with ".exe". And anyway, it's trouble you will have due to Windows...
> >I'd suggest that something like this would be sufficiently user-
> >friendly (for the kind of users who want Cygwin in the first
> place):
> >
> >* Let Cygwin recognize Windows shortcuts as symbolic links.
> >
> >* Let Cygwin optionally create symbolic links as Windows shortcuts,
> > e.g. "ln foo bar" makes an old-style symbolic link,
> > "ln --uwin foo bar" makes a Windows shortcut.
> >
> >* Don't require Cygwin to hide or covertly add the `.lnk'
> extension.
> > So to follow a Windows shortcut "foo.lnk", you actually
> have to call
> > it "foo.lnk" when talking to your Cygwin-aware program.
> Similarly,
> > to make a Windows shortcut that Cygwin-non-aware programs will
> > actually recognize, you have to give the `.lnk'
> extension in your
> > "ln" command; e.g. "ln --uwin foo bar" really does make
> `bar'; to
> > make `bar.lnk' you have to ask for it explicitly,
> > "ln --uwin foo bar.lnk".
> >
> >* Users who would like Windows Explorer to handle Cygwin symbolic
> > links gracefully, may ask Microsoft to link the next release of
> > Explorer against the cygwin DLL; or request the source
> code so they
> > can hack it themselves :).
> >
> >It seems to me that this provides most of the benefits of the new
> >symlinks, and avoids most of the specification hassles.
>
>
> I also believe this is a (good) way to solve the problem of
> shortcuts in
> Cygwin. I think it would be great to be able to use Windows
> shortcuts but
> I'm less certain of the gain outweighing the pain when it
> comes to having
> Cygwin create shortcuts itself, by default at least.
>
> BTW, I think its great that Corinna's work has brought up
> this issue. The
> ability to use Windows shortcuts in Cygwin has been a
> recurring "request"
> and it's wonderful that she's taken some time to address it.
> Hopefully
> she doesn't regret doing so now!;-)
>
What I like with Corinna's solution is that it works both ways, something
that helps a lot integrating POSIX applications ported under cygwin and
existing Windows applications; after all THAT is the obective of cygwin
isn't it?
So I hope that new-style symlinks will still be available in the future; I
would like them to be the default but I would accept to have to put an
option in CYGWIN (although I'd prefer to be able to let it empty...)
Regards,
Bernard
--------------------------------------------
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 -