Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Message-ID: <015a01c09d12$93b022a0$0200a8c0@lifelesswks>
From: "Robert Collins" <robert DOT collins AT itdomain DOT com DOT au>
To: <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
References: <17B78BDF120BD411B70100500422FC6309E210 AT IIS000> <20010222184404 DOT S908 AT cygbert DOT vinschen DOT de> <3A955952 DOT 6FF234D4 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu>
Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT]: Important change to symbolic link functionali ty
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 08:01:05 +1100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Feb 2001 20:53:34.0360 (UTC) FILETIME=[85594980:01C09D11]

I don't know what the overhead would be in practice, but can't the DOS
path get verified on reads? And fixed if it's wrong?

Rob


----- Original Message -----
From: "Charles S. Wilson" <cwilson AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu>
To: "Corinna Vinschen" <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
Sent: Friday, February 23, 2001 5:24 AM
Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT]: Important change to symbolic link
functionali ty


> Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>
> > The POSIX path in the shortcut which is used by Cygwin is saved
EXACTLY
> > as it's given. So there is no change in behaviour as far as Cygwin
is
> > concerned!!! OTOH the symlinks now have a meaning for DOS tools as
well.
> >
> > I can't see a disadvantage here.
>
> Sounds like a good system to me.  The only drawback I can see -- and I
> don't mean this as a criticism, it's simply unavoidable -- is the
> following:
>
> If you create a symlink that points to an object and spans a mount
> entry, both the "cygwin" path and the "dos" path will 'do the right
> thing' and point where you think they should.
>
> Then, change the underlying mount entry.
>
> The "cygwin" path will point to the new location (since it is
> interpreted using the new mount entry) but the "dos" path will still
> point to the old (possibly non-existant, now) location because it
*was*
> interpreted at symlink-creation-time using the old mount table.
>
> IMO, this slight and rare inconvenience is worth the price -- at least
> now, symlinks will mostly work from Explorer.  Let's be honest, now:
how
> often do you really rearrange your mount table?
>
> --Chuck
>
> --
> Want to unsubscribe from this list?
> Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
>
>


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