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: <mailto:cygwin-apps-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-apps/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin-apps AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-apps-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/lists.html#faqs>
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-apps AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Message-ID: <3BEE0392.4030204@ece.gatech.edu>
Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2001 23:50:26 -0500
From: Charles Wilson <cwilson AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011019 Netscape6/6.2
X-Accept-Language: en-us
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: symlinks
References: <EA18B9FA0FE4194AA2B4CDB91F73C0EF08F28B AT itdomain002 DOT itdomain DOT net DOT au> <3BEDFE95 DOT 3000200 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu> <20011111043838 DOT GA22496 AT redhat DOT com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Christopher Faylor wrote:

> 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 (!<symlink>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.


Well, the old style symlinks, relying as they do on having the "system" bit 
set, don't work correctly on shares, IIRC.

However, I agree that cygwin shouldn't try to interpret "normal" windows 
.lnk files -- but I thought Corinna put heuristics in so that cygwin 
wouldn't do that.

 
> 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.


That's true.


--Chuck