Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
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: Thu, 4 Aug 2005 15:20:00 +0200
From: Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: Cygwin and NTFS Junction Points
Message-ID: <20050804132000.GS14783@calimero.vinschen.de>
Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References: <080320051737 DOT 1393 DOT 42F100EC00014F6E0000057122007358340A050E040D0C079D0A AT comcast DOT net> <42F11228 DOT 2030305 AT air2web DOT com> <42F113B6 DOT 843BA07D AT dessent DOT net> <20050803200818 DOT GI14783 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <42F1F189 DOT 2090407 AT decodon DOT com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <42F1F189.2090407@decodon.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2i

On Aug  4 12:44, Frank-Michael Moser wrote:
> Corinna,


http://cygwin.com/acronyms/#TOFU reformatted.


> Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >   To me, junction points are more like mount points,
> > not symlinks.  Since mount points are transparent and don't act like
> > symlinks to cp/mv/rm and friends, I won't opt for treating junctions as
> > symlinks in the Cygwin DLL.
> > 
> > At least not in the general case.  In theory, we could implement it like
> > this:  If the target is a fs, treat the junction like a mount point (aka,
> > transparently as a normal directory), otherwise, if the target is a
> > directory, treat the junction as a symlink.
> > 
> > However, this is complicated, time consuming and error prone.  I can easily
> > imagine that this behaviour results in a strange, unexpected behaviour for
> > some people.

> I understand your objections but I think this all could be seen from an
> alternate point of view.
> 
> As you said, JPs, as they are implemented, are less useful than real
> POSIX symlinks. Now instead of miming Microsofts intention with the JPs,
> why not simply considering them consequently as symlinks in Cygwin and
> so making them really useful, at least for Cygwin users. This could be
> competed by installing NTFSLink and so getting JPs consequently and
> transparently handled as POSIX-like symlinks in Windows Explorer and
> Cygwin and thus making them *very* useful finally.

You don't want to have reparse points treated as symlinks all the time,
do you?  That just sounds plain wrong to me.  As I wrote, it would be
possible to treat them as symlinks, but that would neither make sense for
mounted file systems, nor for the general case (e.g., for instance, non-
Microsoft RPs).  And then again, it's a lot of extra effort Cygwin has
to go through.  For example when a RP should be removed, a simple
DeleteFile just doesn't work.

Well, either case, http://cygwin.com/acronyms/#SHTDI.


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/