Mail Archives: cygwin/2005/01/15/04:32:51
On Jan 14 20:05, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Jan 2005, Jeff.Hodges wrote:
> > Mostly these are symlinks to directories which I use to more
> > conveniently traipse around my filesystem. This was true of all my
> > cygwin install/upgrades on Win2k from say 1999 thru 2004. The native Win
> > filesystem has been NTFS in all cases, fwiw.
2001. The shortcuts have been added to Cygwin in 2001.
> > 1. cygwin-created (via "ln -s") symlinks/shortcuts pointing to a
> > directory are displayed in windows file dialogs with the windows default
> > "funky file" icon (I dunno what it's actual name is) rather than the
> > windows folder icon as used to be the case on win2k/cygwin.
> >
> > 2. cygwin-created (via "ln -s") symlinks/shortcuts pointing to a
> > directory are displayed in some windows file-open or file-save dialogs,
> > but not in others. On win2k/cygwin, they were always displayed and
> > always behaved exactly like windows-created shortcuts pointing to a
> > directory. In terms of how they are behaving on WinXP/cygwin..
> >
> > 2.1. In the cases where they *are* displayed in windows file-open or
> > file-save dialogs, e.g. using windows version of OpenOffice 1.1.3, the
> > program in question attempts to either open the symlink/shortcut file
> > itself or overwrite it, respectively.
> >
> > 2.2. In the cases where they "are not* displayed in the windows dialog
> > (whether open or save), e.g. as done by Firefox 1.0 in the file-save
> > case, well, the symlink/shortcut simply isn't listed in the dialog, when
> > on win2k/cygwin they were displayed (and behaved) just fine.
>
> Hmm, interesting. I've never noticed this, but your mail prompted me to
> look on my own machine. And, lo and behold, on a plain WinXP SP1 (note,
> no SP2) I get the same behavior.
But they work in Windows Explorer, nevertheless. We're not in control
of the icon used by Windows. As soon as we do, the shortcut is not a
Cygwin shortcut anymore and it's saved by tar as a file rather than a
symlink.
> I've noticed this. Further, after a quick look at the structure of the
> symlinks[*] shows that the shortcuts created by WinXP have much more stuff
> in them (513 bytes vs. 115 bytes), and they seem to have most of the stuff
> (comments and paths) in Unicode. I suspect that WinXP doesn't really deal
> well with non-Unicode shortcuts.
>
> Perhaps an update to Cygwin's symlink() implementation is in order? The
> one that's there now actually has the structure of a Windows symlink
> hard-coded in (which apparently fails on XP). See path.cc in
> src/winsup/cygwin. <http://cygwin.com/acronyms/#PTC>.
It has been done so for speed. And it doesn't really fail. The shortcut
is still a shortcut in Windows Explorer. I'm wondering if it's really
the Unicodeness of the shortcut which makes the difference. Usually
shortcuts generated in Windows Explorer are much longer anyway.
Corinna
--
Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat, Inc.
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
- Raw text -