Mailing-List: contact cygwin-apps-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm Sender: cygwin-apps-owner AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-apps AT sources DOT redhat DOT com Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2001 23:38:38 -0500 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: symlinks Message-ID: <20011111043838.GA22496@redhat.com> Reply-To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com References: <3BEDFE95 DOT 3000200 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3BEDFE95.3000200@ece.gatech.edu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23.1i On Sat, Nov 10, 2001 at 11:29:09PM -0500, Charles Wilson wrote: >Robert Collins wrote: > >>When extracting tarballs, should setup create 'native' symlinks or magic >>cookie symlinks? > >I thought the magic cookie (!target) symlinks were deprecated. >Currently, "ln -s" makes "special" .lnk shortcuts; I think setup should do >the same -- there should be no difference between the following scenarios: They're not exactly deprecated. I think Corinna has had second thoughts about the current method, actually. Or, maybe she just didn't like having cygwin interpret native Windows .lnk files. I don't anticipate that they will ever go away, so I think we should stick with having setup.exe create the "old style" method. It will keep the code size down in setup.exe. Or, maybe this will become a non-issue when/if setup.exe is split in two since we'll be able to use cygwin tar at that point. cgf