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 11:38:14 -0500 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: Re: New symlinks Message-ID: <20010227113814.D10689@redhat.com> Reply-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com References: <20010227002258.A8991@redhat.com> <3A9BCF7E.14BC5D25@yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.11i In-Reply-To: <3A9BCF7E.14BC5D25@yahoo.com>; from earnie_boyd@yahoo.com on Tue, Feb 27, 2001 at 11:02:06AM -0500 On Tue, Feb 27, 2001 at 11:02:06AM -0500, Earnie Boyd wrote: >Christopher Faylor wrote: >> >> I've finally taken the time to play with the new symlinks. I like them! >> >> However, I noticed that when I do this: >> >> ln -s bar foo >> cat foo.lnk >> >> I get the contents of bar. >> >> Should I? Or should I get a "file not found"? Or should I get >> the contents of foo? >> > >I would expect "file not found". I had reported and Corinna made >changes but I haven't had the time to test them something similar. I >would also expect that `ln -s bar foo.lnk' to physically produce >foo.lnk.lnk. Ditto. cgf -- Want to unsubscribe from this list? Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple