X-Recipient:	archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
DomainKey-Signature:	a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:subject
	:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
	q=dns; s=default; b=TcVxqGgGZQ1csGcnm6W8J2DeSuRknSLobFY8RxaHspV
	B2fG/XhhnjDZlkQiU2uXwP7V73Tedvm68gACnsTUVU75+n/PPGBB7p7g2e6+fInl
	gKE477HCahxMxO2ObadADf6KppISoYW4g/pcAsbYqV6EfBTBX0lWx/luALK33ZhU
	=
DKIM-Signature:	v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:subject
	:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
	s=default; bh=mK4Y0F59p1lYRcTxwL6J6qsQDkM=; b=nm+XW/q5KkoXNSwZD
	INoZZqD73S0ReSlMvk+kIRDioZF5e3qJQ14RKeYtMLUqBmQf+m0xj0vd6IseucTF
	X4jEBKMRmOUNVDrsYqD4FWTlGntJ7NKCv/DdBh9j7cpS7IUYh/9KDbMEnzh1WqJ2
	AcTjT0SgD5aEUNX32OnGWyryIM=
Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id:	<cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Authentication-Results:	sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found:	No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status:	No, score=-1.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2
X-HELO:	Ishtar.hs.tlinx.org
Message-ID:	<56042985.2040104@tlinx.org>
Date:	Thu, 24 Sep 2015 09:49:09 -0700
From:	Linda Walsh <cygwin AT tlinx DOT org>
User-Agent:	Thunderbird
MIME-Version:	1.0
To:	"Walter L." <bournenoir AT hotmail DOT com>,
	"cygwin AT cygwin DOT com" <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
Subject:	Re: Issues encountered with new Cygwin version
References:	<BLU182-W10FB6B21A2AEC90F71470FD4450 AT phx DOT gbl> <154887677 DOT 20150923111537 AT yandex DOT ru> <BLU182-DS2B4F831FEB7E4C1B67330D4440 AT phx DOT gbl> <56036256 DOT 8080209 AT tlinx DOT org> <BLU182-DS2567923242507AF88D9315D4430 AT phx DOT gbl> <56037F66 DOT 40209 AT tlinx DOT org> <BLU182-DS177F609D3B4BC69A880C77D4430 AT phx DOT gbl>
In-Reply-To:	<BLU182-DS177F609D3B4BC69A880C77D4430@phx.gbl>
X-IsSubscribed:	yes

Walter L. wrote:
>> > > > > I believe the target of the symlink should be "protocol" (i.e.

>> How would that affect 'services'?
> 
> Sorry, you lost me. 'services' has 8 characters in the file name and so is
> its symlink target; That shouldn't be an issue. Of the 4 symlinks under
> /etc/ (i.e. networks, hosts, services, and protocols), only 'protocols'
> exceeds the 8 character limit and hence the actual target file in
> Windows/System32/drivers/etc/ is 'protocol'. NOTE: I'm talking about the
> *target* file not the symlinks themselves, which are fine.
---

Oops.. my bad -- don't know why I substituted services. However,
weren't those files there for unix-subsystem support?  Not sure:

From this:

https://books.google.com/books?id=6hlNFc7drzEC&pg=PA39&lpg=PA39&dq=reason+for+drivers/etc/protocol+on+windows&source=bl&hl=en&sa=X&q=reason%20for%20drivers%2Fetc%2Fprotocol%20on%20windows&f=false#v=snippet&q=reason%20for%20drivers%2Fetc%2Fprotocol%20on%20windows&f=false
(page 39) -- it says those files were specific to NT systems beginning with
NT4.0, which used NTFS.  I don't know if NT supported having the windows/system32
directory on FAT][32]...  NT4 would have been the version before Windows 2000



--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

- Raw text -