X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_WL,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,TW_YG X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org X-IronPortListener: Outbound_SMTP X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApoLAPBKtVCcKEcX/2dsb2JhbABFwB8WbAeCGgsSKFEBFScCLxMmAQQbDgyFJweCHx6eOoRJjEaQL4w6g2BhA4hehFeOWYo3gw4 From: "Buchbinder, Barry (NIH/NIAID) [E]" To: "cygwin AT cygwin DOT com" Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 18:27:42 -0500 Subject: Symlink Size [was Rebase/Perl packaging problem?] Message-ID: <0105D5C1E0353146B1B222348B0411A20AD854CBC9@NIHMLBX02.nih.gov> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Id: 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 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by delorie.com id qARNRqXT028569 Barry Buchbinder sent the following at Tuesday, November 27, 2012 6:02 PM >For the record, I was worried that if I simply deleted it cygcheck -c >perl would report perl as incomplete. So I changed the link so that it >pointed to . cygcheck reports complete and the >rebaseall error message goes away. This is just for my education. While looking at this, I noticed (where "noticed" = "was confused and thought that something was wrong") that the ls showed the symlink to be 24 bytes while Widows Explorer (properties) and cmd /c DIR showed it to be 35 bytes. When I copied the symlink nothing changed. When I removed the system attribute of the copy (making it no longer a symlink), ls started showing it as 35 bytes. Looking inside the symlink in a windows text editor showed the following 35 byte string: "!/usr/bin/cygperl5_14.dll" (no trailing \n). "/usr/bin/cygperl5_14.dll" is 24 bytes so the numbers are explained. So I'm wondering: Is this by design (presumably to be consistent with POSIX or Linux) or is it just the way it worked out? (Or both?) Are there other cygwin situations where ls doesn't report the actual size on disk? Thanks for enlightening me. - Barry Disclaimer: Statements made herein are not made on behalf of NIAID. -- 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