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: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 22:30:40 -0500 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: New symlinks. Message-ID: <20010301223040.A7391@redhat.com> Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com References: <5 DOT 0 DOT 2 DOT 1 DOT 0 DOT 20010301173204 DOT 02448c90 AT mailhost> <3A9F0AA7 DOT 6AFCC739 AT yahoo DOT com> <5 DOT 0 DOT 2 DOT 1 DOT 0 DOT 20010301190322 DOT 0244d370 AT mailhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.11i In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.0.20010301190322.0244d370@mailhost>; from munch@powertv.com on Thu, Mar 01, 2001 at 07:16:56PM -0800 On Thu, Mar 01, 2001 at 07:16:56PM -0800, John Paulson wrote: >And when the partial paths _are_ followed, how will that interact with >mount points? If there is a "/c.lnk" file and I also have a mount for >"/c", who wins? During the expansion of the path, is the partially >de-symlinked path looked up in mount table? (Nitpicking is my life). This isn't a new thing for path checking. You have exactly the same case with the old symlinks since /c doesn't necessarily have to exist as a physical directory or file. In any case, why are you asking questions rather than posting results? This isn't theory we're discussing. The DLL with these changes is available for testing now. cgf -- Want to unsubscribe from this list? Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple