Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , 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: <4.3.1.2.20020502110249.02465618@pop.ma.ultranet.com> X-Sender: lhall AT pop DOT ma DOT ultranet DOT com Date: Thu, 02 May 2002 11:13:58 -0400 To: Mellman Thomas , cygwin AT cygwin DOT com From: "Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc)" Subject: RE: using Windows links In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 10:53 AM 5/2/2002, Mellman Thomas wrote: > >>> >>Just because it isn't recognized as a Cygwin symbolic link > >>> >>doesn't mean it > >>> >>doesn't exist as a file as far as Cygwin is concerned. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>The thing is, the Windows-created Shortcut is called > >>Desktop.lnk and I'm trying to create simply Desktop. There > >>is NO file called Desktop. But ln(1) fails, telling me that > >>Desktop exists. > >> > >> > >>Cygwin symlinks, by default, create windows shortcuts. > >>Windows shortcuts > >>append ".lnk" onto the name of the file given as the > >>shortcut. So you may > >>think you're asking Cygwin to create "Desktop" but you're > >>actually asking > >>it to create "Desktop.lnk". > > >Hmmm. Consider this: > >$ ln -s /h h >$ lf >Desktop@ h@ >$ ll h >lrwxrwxrwx 1 Administ Kein 85 May 2 14:46 h -> /h >$ > >There's no h.lnk here. >Is this just a question of having the right frame-of-mind? ".lnk" is hidden by Cygwin because it wants to treat shortcuts as symlinks (unless 'nowinsymlinks' is set in the CYGWIN environment variable). Look at the directory listing in a DOS box. The .lnk is there. > >> > >>>Thus, cygwin is throwing in the towel on link/Shortcut > >>compatibility, but I think it was forgotten to remove some of > >>the code. > >> > >> > >>Wrong on both accounts. The default Cygwin symbolic link > >>creation mode > >>makes shortcuts. These shortcuts are usable directly by > >>Explorer and other > >>Windows apps that understand Windows shortcuts. Shortcuts > >>made by Windows > >>are not grokked as Cygwin shortcuts however. There's nothing > >>"wrong" here. > > >I didn't use the word "wrong". I only said, "non-compatible". > OK, let's be literal. You made the following sweeping and unsubstantiated statement: "...cygwin is throwing in the towel on link/Shortcut compatibility..." I'm simply stating that this is not true, which I explained above. The current implementation is as compatible as possible given the limitations of shortcuts and the mismatch they have with POSIX paths. If you want to know more about the design issues there, check out the developers archive. It was all discussed there. Of course, no one will object if someone finds a nice solution that allows even more compatibility. But a review of what's been done and discussed already is beneficial to keep from reintroducing bygone ideas and threads. > >>>Hmmm. Theoretically, I should fix this myself. If I were > >>able to right now (unfortunately, I don't think now is the > >>right time), how could I contribute here? I'd have to get > >>all the source for cygwin1.dll, configure my machine for > >>remote CVS access, find and make the change, and then? What > >>would be next? > >> > >>Start here: www.cygwin.com/contributing > > >Thank you for the link. You're welcome. Larry Hall lhall AT rfk DOT com RFK Partners, Inc. http://www.rfk.com 838 Washington Street (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office Holliston, MA 01746 (508) 893-9889 - FAX -- 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/