Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@cygwin.com Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 17:28:09 -0800 (PST) From: "Peter A. Castro" To: cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] Updated: zsh-4.2.0-1 (Attn: zsh maintainer) In-Reply-To: <20040330005827.GB4456@redhat.com> Message-ID: References: <20040326150928.0CD6C400140@redhat.com> <22ag60ps55ncebbc9dm2u1lele15os5mpp@4ax.com> <20040330005827.GB4456@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-IsSubscribed: yes On Mon, 29 Mar 2004, Christopher Faylor wrote: > On Mon, Mar 29, 2004 at 02:40:23PM -0800, Peter A. Castro wrote: > >On Mon, 29 Mar 2004, Peter A. Castro wrote: > > > >> On Mon, 29 Mar 2004, Igor Pechtchanski wrote: > >> > On Mon, 29 Mar 2004, zzapper wrote: > >> > > On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 11:40:59 +0100, wrote: > >> > > >On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 10:09:28 -0500 (EST), wrote: > >> > > > > >> > > >>An updated version of zsh (zsh-4.2.0-1) has been released and should be > >> > > >>at a mirror near you real soon. > >> > > >> > >> > > >Hi I saw zsh 4.2.0 download this morning when I ran my daily setup > >> > > >however (having reset my PC as requested) > >> > > > > >> > > >zsh --version > >> > > >zsh 4.1.1 (i686-pc-cygwin) > >> > > > > >> > > >>whence zsh > >> > > >/usr/bin/zsh > >> > > > > >> > > I had to rename zsh-4.2.0.exe to zsh.exe myself (is that > >> > > normal/correct?) > >> > > > >> > > zzapper (vim, cygwin, wiki & zsh) > >> > > >> > Sounds like a packaging bug. The archive contains "/usr/bin/zsh.exe" as a > >> > symbolic link to "/usr/bin/zsh-4.2.0.exe". This will cause zsh to not > >> > work from batch files and shortcuts (!). > > > >(I'm tired) I just noticed, it's not a symlink, its a hardlink. As such, > >it'll materialize as if it was a real file in the filesystems and native > >Windows programs will see it as a normal file, not a link. > > Unfortunately, setup.exe doesn't recognize hard links, AFAIK. That's Ok. Hard links are more for effiency than anything else. The current behaviour of setup is, apparently, to duplicate the linked-to file contents, which is just fine. If/when hardlinks are actually supported, that'll be Ok too. > cgf -- Peter A. Castro or "Cats are just autistic Dogs" -- Dr. Tony Attwood -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/