Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Message-ID: <17B78BDF120BD411B70100500422FC6309E229@IIS000>
From: Bernard Dautrevaux <Dautrevaux AT microprocess DOT com>
To: "'Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc)'" <lhall AT rfk DOT com>,
        Robert A McDougall
	 <McDougall AT agecon DOT purdue DOT edu>, cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: RE: New symlinks
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 19:35:42 +0100 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc) [mailto:lhall AT rfk DOT com]
> Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2001 6:51 PM
> To: Robert A McDougall; cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
> Subject: Re: New symlinks
> 
> 
> At 12:28 PM 3/1/2001, Robert A McDougall wrote:
> >On Wed, 28 Feb 2001 at 18:38:11 -0500 Christopher Faylor wrote:
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> >What he said!
> >

He said he's not sure it's worth the trouble to try to allow native Windows
programs and Cygwin programs to work together nicely. I agree it's SOME
trouble; however I'm not sure this "vanishing" .lnk extension should be seen
as big trouble. I agree this is some trouble, and that we will probably have
some questions in the mailing list about "why is foo.lnk listed as foo" or
why can't I create foo" (with "when foo.lnk is there" probably omitted) but
tha'ts not worst (and in fact a lot simpler) than the trouble we already
have with ".exe". And anyway, it's trouble you will have due to Windows...

> >I'd suggest that something like this would be sufficiently user-
> >friendly (for the kind of users who want Cygwin in the first 
> place):  
> >
> >*   Let Cygwin recognize Windows shortcuts as symbolic links.
> >
> >*   Let Cygwin optionally create symbolic links as Windows shortcuts,
> >     e.g. "ln foo bar" makes an old-style symbolic link,
> >     "ln --uwin foo bar" makes a Windows shortcut.
> >
> >*   Don't require Cygwin to hide or covertly add the `.lnk' 
> extension.
> >     So to follow a Windows shortcut "foo.lnk", you actually 
> have to call
> >     it "foo.lnk" when talking to your Cygwin-aware program. 
>  Similarly,
> >     to make a Windows shortcut that Cygwin-non-aware programs will
> >     actually recognize, you have to give the `.lnk' 
> extension in your
> >     "ln" command; e.g. "ln --uwin foo bar" really does make 
> `bar'; to
> >     make `bar.lnk' you have to ask for it explicitly,
> >     "ln --uwin foo bar.lnk".
> >
> >*   Users who would like Windows Explorer to handle Cygwin symbolic
> >     links gracefully, may ask Microsoft to link the next release of
> >     Explorer against the cygwin DLL; or request the source 
> code so they
> >     can hack it themselves :).
> >
> >It seems to me that this provides most of the benefits of the new
> >symlinks, and avoids most of the specification hassles.
> 
> 
> I also believe this is a (good) way to solve the problem of 
> shortcuts in 
> Cygwin.  I think it would be great to be able to use Windows 
> shortcuts but
> I'm less certain of the gain outweighing the pain when it 
> comes to having 
> Cygwin create shortcuts itself, by default at least.  
> 
> BTW, I think its great that Corinna's work has brought up 
> this issue.  The
> ability to use Windows shortcuts in Cygwin has been a 
> recurring "request"
> and it's wonderful that she's taken some time to address it.  
> Hopefully
> she doesn't regret doing so now!;-)
> 

What I like with Corinna's solution is that it works both ways, something
that helps a lot integrating POSIX applications ported under cygwin and
existing Windows applications; after all THAT is the obective of cygwin
isn't it? 

So I hope that new-style symlinks will still be available in the future; I
would like them to be the default but I would accept to have to put an
option in CYGWIN (although I'd prefer to be able to let it empty...)

Regards,

	Bernard

--------------------------------------------
Bernard Dautrevaux
Microprocess Ingenierie
97 bis, rue de Colombes
92400 COURBEVOIE
FRANCE
Tel:	+33 (0) 1 47 68 80 80
Fax:	+33 (0) 1 47 88 97 85
e-mail:	dautrevaux AT microprocess DOT com
		b DOT dautrevaux AT usa DOT net
-------------------------------------------- 

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