Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 18:38:11 -0500 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: New symlinks. Message-ID: <20010228183811.B5603@redhat.com> Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com References: <17B78BDF120BD411B70100500422FC6309E220 AT IIS000> <200102281857 DOT UAA05162 AT linux.> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.11i In-Reply-To: <200102281857.UAA05162@linux.>; from ehud@unix.simonwiesel.co.il on Wed, Feb 28, 2001 at 08:57:21PM +0200 On Wed, Feb 28, 2001 at 08:57:21PM +0200, Ehud Karni wrote: >On Wed, 28 Feb 2001 17:58:32 +0100, Bernard Dautrevaux wrote: >> People that only use the Windows GUI would be confused by the ".lnk" >> extension if shown by cygwin, but as we don't show it by default there's no >> problem. OTOH people used to CMD.exe will be used to the lnk suffix (as DIR >> shows it) but should understand that cygwin is doing the same as Explorer, >> and hide it. > >Don't assume Windows native users are ignorant ! Have you been reading this mailing list? Have I been transported into another universe? Many of the posters here are ignorant. Many people are confused by simple things. >We are not talking >about the layperson here (S/he uses packages, not commands), we are >speaking of developers, No. We're not just speaking about developers. Even if we were, you can't possibly claim that every single person who uses Cygwin is a developer. Or, even if you are talking about developers, you're talking about people who post their simple programs here asking why they don't work, expecting others to do their debugging for them. >I prefer that Cygwin ls -al will show me the same file list. It does >it for *.exe files. May be a special switch can be added to ls >(--show-symlink-full ?). Have you considered what would be necessary to do something like this? All of the the .lnk translation is being done at a low level in cygwin. How, exactly, would you expose this to ls? This would mean patching ls in some fashion. That means keeping a special patched version of ls around. For what gain? So that users can create symlinks that could be used from Windows? I am wondering if the gain is worth the price. cgf -- Want to unsubscribe from this list? Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple