Mail Archives: cygwin/2002/05/03/11:18:12
At 02:47 AM 5/3/2002, Mellman Thomas wrote:
> >>-----Original Message-----
> >>From: Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc) [mailto:lhall AT rfk DOT com]
> >>Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2002 5:14 PM
> >>To: Mellman Thomas; cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
> >>Subject: RE: using Windows links
> >>
> >>
> >>At 10:53 AM 5/2/2002, Mellman Thomas wrote:
> >>> >>>Thus, cygwin is throwing in the towel on link/Shortcut
> >>> >>compatibility, but I think it was forgotten to remove some of
> >>> >>the code.
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >>Wrong on both accounts. The default Cygwin symbolic link
> >>> >>creation mode
> >>> >>makes shortcuts. These shortcuts are usable directly by
> >>> >>Explorer and other
> >>> >>Windows apps that understand Windows shortcuts. Shortcuts
> >>> >>made by Windows
> >>> >>are not grokked as Cygwin shortcuts however. There's nothing
> >>> >>"wrong" here.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>I didn't use the word "wrong". I only said, "non-compatible".
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>OK, let's be literal. You made the following sweeping and
> >>unsubstantiated
> >>statement:
> >>
> >>"...cygwin is throwing in the towel on link/Shortcut compatibility..."
> >>
> >>I'm simply stating that this is not true, which I explained
> >>above. The
> >>current implementation is as compatible as possible given the
> >>limitations of
> >>shortcuts and the mismatch they have with POSIX paths. If
> >>you want to know
> >>more about the design issues there, check out the developers
> >>archive. It was
> >>all discussed there. Of course, no one will object if
> >>someone finds a nice
> >>solution that allows even more compatibility. But a review
> >>of what's been
> >>done and discussed already is beneficial to keep from
> >>reintroducing bygone
> >>ideas and threads.
>
>
>I've accepted that the current approach is the most economical -
>most practical approach for now. I'll buy your view that the
>implementation is "as compatible as possible given ...".
>
>I don't understand why my statement that "cygwin is throwing in the
>towel on link/Shortcut compatibility" so disturbs you. I don't think
>you can say the statement is not true. It IS true that cygwin is
>wonderfully compatible in one direction, but (thanks to my employer)
>I've still got to swim in and out of this damn MS sewage. So bi-directional
>compatibility would be nice. But I'm still thankful for what I've got.
I will agree that the current situation is not bi-directionally compatible.
Whether or not the current state is akin to Cygwin throwing in any towel
on bi-directional compatibility depends on MS facilities to support this
and/or future patches from net contributors to Cygwin. Like I said though,
if you're interested in details of the current state, check the email
archives.
Larry Hall lhall AT rfk DOT com
RFK Partners, Inc. http://www.rfk.com
838 Washington Street (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office
Holliston, MA 01746 (508) 893-9889 - FAX
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
- Raw text -