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
Date:	Wed, 25 Apr 2001 13:13:37 +0200
From:	Corinna Vinschen <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
To:	cygwin <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
Subject:	Re: Symbol link trouble ?
Message-ID:	<20010425131337.O23753@cygbert.vinschen.de>
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
References:	<4 DOT 2 DOT 0 DOT 58 DOT 20010425105548 DOT 0177e8a0 AT ics DOT u-strasbg DOT fr> <4 DOT 2 DOT 0 DOT 58 DOT 20010425105548 DOT 0177e8a0 AT ics DOT u-strasbg DOT fr> <20010425122831 DOT M23753 AT cygbert DOT vinschen DOT de> <4 DOT 2 DOT 0 DOT 58 DOT 20010425122954 DOT 00b3de80 AT ics DOT u-strasbg DOT fr>
Mime-Version:	1.0
User-Agent:	Mutt/1.2.5i
In-Reply-To:	<4.2.0.58.20010425122954.00b3de80@ics.u-strasbg.fr>; from muller@cerbere.u-strasbg.fr on Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 12:40:40PM +0200

On Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 12:40:40PM +0200, Pierre Muller wrote:
> 
> >Aaargh! Really? I don't have any 95 for testing purposes so
> >I can't look for this. Did you ever think about upgrading to
> >OSR2, 98, ME, NT, W2K? Ok, ok, seriously, if you can't live
> 
> OS version is 4.00.950 B
>    B means OSR 2, no ?

I think so.

> >with that, you should set your CYGWIN environment variable to
> >contain "nowinsymlinks". In that case, the old symlink method
> >is used again.
> 
>   Adding nowinsymlinks to CYGWIN env variable does
> indeed cure the problem !
> 
>    I also find this bug quite strange:
> the wrong destination to the symbolic link is
> kept even if cygwin DLL is unloaded from memory
> (at least Taskinfo does not see this file as open anymore !)
> Where can this information be kept then ???

Could be a buffering technique of W95. I have just read the Microsoft
KB article Q128932 "How Windows 95 Resolves Shortcut Links" but it
doesn't obtain any additional information.

Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Developer                                mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat, Inc.

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

- Raw text -