Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Message-ID: <000701c1e778$42effb40$6fc82486@medschool.dundee.ac.uk>
Reply-To: <fergus AT bonhard DOT uklinux DOT net>
From: <fergus AT bonhard DOT uklinux DOT net>
To: <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
Cc: <fergus AT bonhard DOT uklinux DOT net>
Subject: texmf-related *.lnk files in /bin/ : invalid?
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 09:00:24 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000

Using W98 after a complete install including texmf* : then, one of Norton's
diagnostic checking procedures picked up 5 *.lnk files in /bin/ as "invalid
shortcuts". They are
        elatex.lnk, pdflatex.lnk, pdfelatex.lnk, lambda.lnk, latex.lnk.
They seem to be intended links to
        etex.exe, pdftex.exe, pdfetex.exe, omega.exe, tex.exe,
respectively. They are binaries so it is difficult to check their syntax. I
would not have been bothered by Norton's diagnostics if several other items
of (what seem to me to be) similar status such as
        pdfinitex, pdfeinitex, ...
had failed the check too; but they passed. So, could (should?) the binary
file elatex.lnk (and the other 4, similarly) be turned into one-line text
files containing the line
    !<symlink>etex
(and pdftex, pdfetex, omega, tex, similarly), then renamed without the .lnk
extension, and then given the +s (not +r) attribute? That way they might
achieve the same purpose as is presently intended, but without tripping up
Norton (and other?) diagnostics programs?
I am very _very_ sorry if I am talking complete and utter rubbish and that
this tweak, if implemented, would break what currently isn't broken. Then I
would deserve to be (and would expect to be) admonished. But, if it would
tidy what is presently untidy (as it seems to me to that it might do) would
it be possible in this case to implement the tweak at source?
Fergus


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/