Message-ID: <4AF905A8.10605@tlinx.org>
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2009 22:18:16 -0800
From: Linda Walsh <cygwin@tlinx.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.22) Gecko/20090605 Lightning/0.9 Thunderbird/2.0.0.22 ThunderBrowse/3.2.6.5 Mnenhy/0.7.6.666
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: cygwin@cygwin.com
Subject: Re: NTFS Symlinks (reparse point) redux
References: <4AF357E1.4010106@tlinx.org>  <20091105230119.GB2699@ednor.casa.cgf.cx>  <4AF39229.6050204@tlinx.org>  <4AF39A7F.7010000@cygwin.com> <20091106104446.GB26344@calimero.vinschen.de>
In-Reply-To: <20091106104446.GB26344@calimero.vinschen.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com

Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Nov  5 22:39, Larry Hall (Cygwin) wrote:
>  Cygwin 1.7 does recognize reparse points and especially
> the new NTFS6 symlinks. 
---
	Yeah, I have yet to upgrade...going through throws of machine tantrums
now--and OS issues...I hope to give her a spin soon.


> However, it only reads them, never writes them,
> for the reasons repeated by cgf and me a couple of times.
---
	That's fine w/me for the nonce, drives me crazy when I forget about
the ones I've created, let alone all the new ones in use in Vista...


>  You just
> can't use them to store POSIX paths 
----
	That would tend to confuse win processes...

	Anyone know what happens under the included POSIX subsystem in
Vista (and I assume Win7), when it creates symlinks?  I can't imagine
they use ".lnk" file extensions -- but if they use "reparse point" links,
I'd think they'd almost have to store posix path information in them.  I
wonder if a posix created symlink is compatible (usable) by a dos/win app?

Maybe there's something usable from the posix subsystem that would work for
both purposes?  Just a thought -- I haven't looked into the posix subsystem
under vista.

> *and* allowing interoperability with
> native Win32 processes, plus the nonsense of coupling them with a user
> right, plus the super-nonsense only to allow Admins to create them by
> default.
---
	Hmmm...can't imagine that being true for the posix symlinks.  Maybe
posix symlinks only work in posix and aren't true symbolic links recognized
by NT.  *sigh*.

>  All that together makes them worse than Windows shortcuts and
> they have not the faintest advantage over Cygwin-only symlinks
> implemented as files with the SYSTEM DOS attribute set.
---
	Well -- 1 advantage.  They work in cygwin and in windows --
by work, I mean the indirection.  Not that every feature one would want
works.  But all cygwin and dos/windows apps blithely follow the links
without knowing they are links.  Same can't be said for ".lnk" based links.
*sigh*.

-l
 

--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple