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
X-Apparently-From: <earnie?boyd AT yahoo DOT com>
Message-ID: <3A9BE1E0.37446B8F@yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 12:20:32 -0500
From: Earnie Boyd <earnie_boyd AT yahoo DOT com>
Reply-To: Earnie Boyd <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (WinNT; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Corinna Vinschen <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
Subject: Re: New symlinks.
References: <20010227064205 DOT 24363 DOT qmail AT web6404 DOT mail DOT yahoo DOT com> <20010227104026 DOT B10525 AT redhat DOT com> <20010227171730 DOT L4275 AT cygbert DOT vinschen DOT de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Feb 27, 2001 at 10:40:26AM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> > I *really* don't think that the .lnk extension should show up when
> > doing an "ls -l" as was suggested in another post.  That is just an
> > open invitation to increasing mailing list traffic: "How do I get rid
> > of the .lnk extension when I create symlinks????  It doesn't do this
> > on Linux."
> >
> > I am, as always, more concerned about supporting this feature in
> > the long run.  If allowing foo.lnk to be referenced explicitly causes
> > even one person confusion, I don't think that it is worth it.  It
> > is certainly non-UNIX behavior.
> 
> I think it's correct behaviour. Cygwin doesn't show the .lnk
> suffix by itself but nevertheless, to return a `file not found'
> on `ls foo.lnk' wouldn't be correct. It's simply the truth:
> The file `foo.lnk' exists and is a symlink.
> 

I think that .lnk is an attribute of the symlink foo.  It is not the
'filename' as far as Cygwin should be concerned.  There are many
problems with the fact that if I have file foo.exe and I stat foo it
returns true.  It is giving autoconf maintainers a nice challenge for
portability support.  Allowing `ls foo.lnk' could pose even more
problems.

> And FWIW, Cygwin behaves exactly as U/WIN does. I don't know if
> that's an argument but it's at least discussion fodder.
> 

Implementing U/WIN niceties is ok but I don't think that it's an
argument for the way it should work.

Earnie.

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com


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