Mail Archives: cygwin-apps/2001/11/10/23:50:21
Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 10, 2001 at 11:29:09PM -0500, Charles Wilson wrote:
>
>>Robert Collins wrote:
>>
>>
>>>When extracting tarballs, should setup create 'native' symlinks or magic
>>>cookie symlinks?
>>>
>>I thought the magic cookie (!<symlink>target) symlinks were deprecated.
>>Currently, "ln -s" makes "special" .lnk shortcuts; I think setup should do
>>the same -- there should be no difference between the following scenarios:
>>
>
> They're not exactly deprecated. I think Corinna has had second thoughts
> about the current method, actually. Or, maybe she just didn't like
> having cygwin interpret native Windows .lnk files.
Well, the old style symlinks, relying as they do on having the "system" bit
set, don't work correctly on shares, IIRC.
However, I agree that cygwin shouldn't try to interpret "normal" windows
.lnk files -- but I thought Corinna put heuristics in so that cygwin
wouldn't do that.
> I don't anticipate that they will ever go away, so I think we should stick
> with having setup.exe create the "old style" method. It will keep the
> code size down in setup.exe.
>
> Or, maybe this will become a non-issue when/if setup.exe is split in two
> since we'll be able to use cygwin tar at that point.
That's true.
--Chuck
- Raw text -