Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 10:09:18 +0100
From: Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
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: <corinna-cygwin AT cygwin DOT com> <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/