Date:	Thu, 3 Aug 2000 14:17:49 +0300 (IDT)
From:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender:	eliz AT is
To:	Laurynas Biveinis <lauras AT softhome DOT net>
cc:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: New function: lstat()
In-Reply-To:	<39894E1A.6BDD6FBD@softhome.net>
Message-ID:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.1000803141234.12419B-100000@is>
MIME-Version:	1.0
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

On Thu, 3 Aug 2000, Laurynas Biveinis wrote:

> Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > I thought we already made that decision.  
> 
> I'm sorry, I've missed that. All I've seen there were technical
> comments.

That's what they were: technical comments.  I don't think someone said 
that symlink support should not be included.

DJ, do you recall something different?

At least my comments were merely meant to point out possible adverse 
effects of this support.  But since no one was seriously bothered by 
those potential problems, I don't see any obstacles to commit the 
changes.  If you think they are ready to be commited, that is.

> Symlinks won't help to minimize FAQs, that's why I ask
> for political decision. Programs compiled with 2.03 won't
> understand symlinks. Also low level programs which use ISO/POSIX
> functions instead of DOS ones might be broken.

I believe these aspects were already considered.  If someone has second 
thoughts about that, please speak up.

- Raw text -