Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@sourceware.cygnus.com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-owner@sources.redhat.com
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 11:43:32 -0500
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf@redhat.com>
To: Cygwin <cygwin@cygwin.com>
Subject: Re: New symlinks.
Message-ID: <20010227114332.F10689@redhat.com>
Reply-To: cygwin@cygwin.com
Mail-Followup-To: Cygwin <cygwin@cygwin.com>
References: <20010227064205.24363.qmail@web6404.mail.yahoo.com> <20010227104026.B10525@redhat.com> <20010227171730.L4275@cygbert.vinschen.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.11i
In-Reply-To: <20010227171730.L4275@cygbert.vinschen.de>; from cygwin@cygwin.com on Tue, Feb 27, 2001 at 05:17:30PM +0100

On Tue, Feb 27, 2001 at 05:17:30PM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>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.

Again, it is surprising behavior.  Such a file would not exist on UNIX.
I personally think that we should hide implementation details like
"Oh yeah, we added a .lnk extension to all of our symbolic links"
from the user.  There is no reason for them to know or care about
this detail.

cgf

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple