Subject: Re: New symlinks.
From: "Ehud Karni" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 20:57:21 +0200

On Wed, 28 Feb 2001 17:58:32 +0100, Bernard Dautrevaux <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> People that only use the Windows GUI would be confused by the ".lnk"
> extension if shown by cygwin, but as we don't show it by default there's no
> problem. OTOH people used to CMD.exe will be used to the lnk suffix (as DIR
> shows it) but should understand that cygwin is doing the same as Explorer,
> and hide it.

Don't assume Windows native users are ignorant ! We are not talking
about the layperson here (S/he uses packages, not commands), we are
speaking of developers, most of them with experience (even if it is
not UNIX experience). I don't use explorer at all, but I'm using
native Windows tools. One of the the best is Windows Commander by
Christian Ghisler, it will show all files (system/hidden too) with
full file name (all extensions). My editor is NTemcas which has its
own ls, will also show the all files with full name (i.e. foo.lnk).

I prefer that Cygwin ls -al will show me the same file list. It does
it for *.exe files. May be a special switch can be added to ls
(--show-symlink-full ?).

I've read the thread about how to avoid creating foo when foo.lnk
exist and vice versa. I don't have any definite preference. I think
that any consistent set of rules is OK, but it should be clearly
stated in a readme file (may be a special one for symlinks) with a
reference in the ln man page.

Ehud.

-- 
 @@@@@@ @@@ @@@@@@ @    @   Ehud Karni  Simon & Wiesel  Insurance agency
     @    @      @  @@  @   Tel: +972-3-6212-757    Fax: +972-3-6292-544
     @    @ @    @ @  @@    (USA)  Fax  and  voice  mail:  1-815-5509341
     @    @ @    @ @    @        Better     Safe     Than     Sorry
 http://www.simonwiesel.co.il    mailto:[email-masked]

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