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 Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 09:55:32 -0800 (PST) From: "Peter A. Castro" To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: RE: [ANNOUNCEMENT] Updated: zsh-4.2.0-1 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-IsSubscribed: yes On Wed, 31 Mar 2004, Igor Pechtchanski wrote: > On Wed, 31 Mar 2004, Dave Korn wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: cygwin-owner On Behalf Of Peter A. Castro > > > Sent: 30 March 2004 19:45 > > > > > The original issue was with the executable /usr/bin/zsh being > > > a link to the real exe (eg: zsh-4.2.0). However, this is not > > > a packaging error, IMHO. /usr/bin/zsh is a *hardlink*, not a > > > *symlink*, > > > > Does that even work on 9x/ME series? I thought hardlinks required NTFS > > support. > > True hardlinks do. Cygwin's "ln" simply copies the file if hardlink > support is not available (e.g., on FAT*). I believe setup always copies > the hardlinked file (looking at io_stream_cygfile::mklink), but this > functionality is not extensively tested (e.g., zsh is the only binary > tarball with a hardlink in it, AFAIK), so I wouldn't be surprised if > something does go wrong. Oh, you're just being cynical, Igor. What could possibly go wrong? :) > Igor -- Peter A. Castro or "Cats are just autistic Dogs" -- Dr. Tony Attwood -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/