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
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 11:39:58 -0500
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
To: "'cygwin AT cygwin DOT com'" <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
Subject: Re: New symlinks.
Message-ID: <20010301113958.G1326@redhat.com>
Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: "'cygwin AT cygwin DOT com'" <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
References: <17B78BDF120BD411B70100500422FC6309E223 AT IIS000>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.11i
In-Reply-To: <17B78BDF120BD411B70100500422FC6309E223@IIS000>; from Dautrevaux@microprocess.com on Thu, Mar 01, 2001 at 09:58:01AM +0100

On Thu, Mar 01, 2001 at 09:58:01AM +0100, Bernard Dautrevaux wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Christopher Faylor [mailto:cgf AT redhat DOT com]
>> Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2001 1:18 AM
>> To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
>> Subject: Re: New symlinks.
>
>>Those kinds of emails are actually pretty rare.  And, actually, we
>>could work around this problem now by just checking if a Cygwin
>>symbolic link file is read-only, just like we do for .lnk files.
>
>In fact I think the problem is not this one; it's rather:
>
>on my cygwin machine, on a samba share:
>cygwin$ ln -s foo bar
>
>later on, on th esamba server:
>linux$ find .  -name 'foo' | xargs rm
>
>the back on cygwin: cygwin$ ls foo foo
>
>Hey it still exists; I deleted it on the samba share without any error!
>(of course, find on the samba server do NOT match foo with foo.lnk)
>This used to work and I don't understand what's happening...

>The ONLY way out of this is to give the user SOME way to see that foo is in
>fact foo.lnk...

...or not use Windows symlinks at all, as I was proposing.

>> >If you don't show somewhere in cygwin that it is a .lnk file may well
>> >end up surprising them anyway.
>> 
>> I don't know why.  If you can do all of your manipulation of the file
>> without the extension then there is no reason to care about the
>> extension.
>
>Problem is that cygwin is NOT an OS; it's a layer in another world... so you
>can't hide .lnk in ALL cases...

Sure you can.  It depends on how much effort you want to go to.

cgf

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