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: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 10:09:18 +0100 From: Corinna Vinschen To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: odd behavior of symlinks on Win XP SP2 Message-ID: <20050116090918.GF3113@cygbert.vinschen.de> Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com References: <200501151617 DOT j0FGHjx16619 AT networking DOT Stanford DOT EDU> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200501151617.j0FGHjx16619@networking.Stanford.EDU> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2i On Jan 15 08:17, Jeff DOT Hodges AT KingsMountain DOT com wrote: > Seems to me we ought to see if we can't update the symlink() impl such that > this is addressed. I'm betting there's some new attributes or whatever (as > Igor notes) that've been added to symlinks in XP and if we can figure out what > that is, and figure out what the minimum is we need to change in our > cygwin-created .lnk files, we can perhaps (likely?) fix this without adversely > affecting performance. Maybe there's some new system call on XP that we can > use to create these buggers (if we're lucky)? After all, AFAIK, all cygwin > cares about is the cygwin path being in the .lnk file's "comment" > attribute/field, yes? I'm glad that you're talking about "us" as a group. Anybody interested in tracking that down? Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Project Co-Leader mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat, Inc. -- 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/