From:	sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu (Charles Sandmann)
Message-Id:	<10212121858.AA26132@clio.rice.edu>
Subject:	Re: DJGPP 2.04 status page updates: more to-dos, priorities
To:	eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il (Eli Zaretskii)
Date:	Thu, 12 Dec 2002 12:58:37 -0600 (CST)
Cc:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-Reply-To:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.1021212192459.24935B-100000@is> from "Eli Zaretskii" at Dec 12, 2002 07:26:27 PM
X-Mailer:	ELM [version 2.5 PL2]
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

> The current format in DJGPP was selected to not cause any expensive I/O 
> operations in standard functions like `stat' and the likes.  That's why 
> the symlink file has a fixed length.  Is the new Cygwin format compatible 
> with that, i.e. does it create fixed-size files?

I don't know.  A typical .lnk is not, but there are fields that can be
added (such as comment) which would make it fixed size.

There are also problems with .lnk files under SFN systems since you
can't have multiple periods (we might recognize it as a .lnk without 
the name due to size and magic value, but Windows would not).  Deciding
to add .lnk to the name or not based on the setting of LFN would be
more complex.

Windows .lnk format is more complex to process.  I've played with it
in the past.  You can write .lnk files very small without all the
extra fields microsoft typically adds.  And each time you click on
one it updates fields inside the .lnk (access time, etc).

The advantage is, of course, that Windows treats them as symlinks
also.

- Raw text -