Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@sourceware.cygnus.com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@sources.redhat.com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@sources.redhat.com Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 17:17:30 +0100 From: Corinna Vinschen To: Cygwin Subject: Re: New symlinks. Message-ID: <20010227171730.L4275@cygbert.vinschen.de> Mail-Followup-To: Cygwin References: <20010227064205.24363.qmail@web6404.mail.yahoo.com> <20010227104026.B10525@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <20010227104026.B10525@redhat.com>; from cgf@redhat.com on Tue, Feb 27, 2001 at 10:40:26AM -0500 On Tue, Feb 27, 2001 at 10:40:26AM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote: > I *really* don't think that the .lnk extension should show up when > doing an "ls -l" as was suggested in another post. That is just an > open invitation to increasing mailing list traffic: "How do I get rid > of the .lnk extension when I create symlinks???? It doesn't do this > on Linux." > > I am, as always, more concerned about supporting this feature in > the long run. If allowing foo.lnk to be referenced explicitly causes > even one person confusion, I don't think that it is worth it. It > is certainly non-UNIX behavior. I think it's correct behaviour. Cygwin doesn't show the .lnk suffix by itself but nevertheless, to return a `file not found' on `ls foo.lnk' wouldn't be correct. It's simply the truth: The file `foo.lnk' exists and is a symlink. And FWIW, Cygwin behaves exactly as U/WIN does. I don't know if that's an argument but it's at least discussion fodder. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Developer mailto:cygwin@cygwin.com Red Hat, Inc. -- Want to unsubscribe from this list? Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple