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: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 22:30:40 -0500 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: Re: New symlinks. Message-ID: <20010301223040.A7391@redhat.com> Reply-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com References: <5.0.2.1.0.20010301173204.02448c90@mailhost> <3A9F0AA7.6AFCC739@yahoo.com> <5.0.2.1.0.20010301190322.0244d370@mailhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.11i In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.0.20010301190322.0244d370@mailhost>; from munch@powertv.com on Thu, Mar 01, 2001 at 07:16:56PM -0800 On Thu, Mar 01, 2001 at 07:16:56PM -0800, John Paulson wrote: >And when the partial paths _are_ followed, how will that interact with >mount points? If there is a "/c.lnk" file and I also have a mount for >"/c", who wins? During the expansion of the path, is the partially >de-symlinked path looked up in mount table? (Nitpicking is my life). This isn't a new thing for path checking. You have exactly the same case with the old symlinks since /c doesn't necessarily have to exist as a physical directory or file. In any case, why are you asking questions rather than posting results? This isn't theory we're discussing. The DLL with these changes is available for testing now. cgf -- Want to unsubscribe from this list? Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple