X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SARE_MSGID_LONG40,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <4AC89364.9080301@freesbee.fr> References: <4AC89364 DOT 9080301 AT freesbee DOT fr> Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2009 09:12:09 +1300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: symlinks show .exe From: David Antliff To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: 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 2009/10/5 Vincent Rivi=E8re : > Do you agree this is a bug and it should be fixed ? I've got nothing to do with the code, but I am an interested observer. In my experience, it should be possible to create symlinks to any arbitrary target, regardless of whether it actually exists or not. Therefore, if I create a symlink to "/bin/ls" then I'd expect that to be the content of the symlink - the automatic behaviour of rewriting it to "/bin/ls.exe" is unexpected and therefore probably incorrect according to some "standard" somewhere. Perhaps the 'shortcut' of omitting the .exe extension is getting in the way here - it's preventing unambiguous identification of the symlink target. But maybe I misunderstand the scope of symlinks and something somewhere says the system can rewrite them to point at valid targets if it wishes? -- David. -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple