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 X-Authentication-Warning: slinky.cs.nyu.edu: pechtcha owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 18:26:48 -0400 (EDT) From: Igor Pechtchanski Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com To: "Buchbinder, Barry (NIH/NIAID)" cc: "'chris'" , cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: RE: Executable links? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.39 On Tue, 11 May 2004, Buchbinder, Barry (NIH/NIAID) wrote: > WFM on XP: > > /bin> ln -s bash.exe b > > The following opens bash in a new window. > > /bin> cygstart b.lnk > > But in case you are worried that cygstart is doing some cygwin-type magic, > the following also opens bash in a new window. > > /bin> cmd /c start b > > Opening explorer and double clicking on "b" opens bash in a new window. > > Perhaps you have the CYGWIN environmental variable a set to include > "nowinsymlinks". See http://cygwin.com/cygwin-ug-net/using-cygwinenv.html Cygwin setup creates old-style symlinks by default, independent of the "winsymlinks" setting. > "use a proper shell" is likely to raise some hackles on this list. Perhaps > you meant "use a 'native' shell". FWIW, one can always run <>... Igor P.S. > -----Original Message----- > From: chris > Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2004 4:21 PM > Cc: cygwincygwincom > Subject: Executable links? > > Just a couple of tiny questions / thoughts. > > A number of people (myself included) have been "caught" over the fact > that cygwin shortcuts can obviously not be executed from a windows > shell. There appears to me to be 4 ways of dealing with this > > 1) Ignore the problem, use a proper shell > 2) On NTFS, use hard links. I did this for a while, then I thought I > heard that it could cause problems when programs were updated > 3) Have option to duplicate linked files. I've been doing this for a > while now, and the loss of disk space is minimal > 4) Replace links to executables with a very small executable which does > the linking process. I've been experimenting a little with this and it > doesn't seem like a bad idea, except a) it involves hacking where you > want to link to into the executable (not too bad), b) the shortcut is no > longer reckonised by ls / ln / etc (would this be hard to fix?) and c) I > can't make a cygwin executable <10kish (this is still not that large, > and I'm sure someone better than me could make it smaller. > > Any comments / suggestions? -- http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/ |\ _,,,---,,_ pechtcha AT cs DOT nyu DOT edu ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ igor AT watson DOT ibm DOT com |,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' Igor Pechtchanski, Ph.D. '---''(_/--' `-'\_) fL a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-. Meow! "I have since come to realize that being between your mentor and his route to the bathroom is a major career booster." -- Patrick Naughton -- 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/