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: <023601c16a9b$97ad80d0$0200a8c0@lifelesswks>
From: "Robert Collins" <robert DOT collins AT itdomain DOT com DOT au>
To: <cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com>
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> <014001c16a6b$9e42fe00$0200a8c0 AT lifelesswks> <20011111045349 DOT GA22654 AT redhat DOT com>
Subject: Re: symlinks
Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2001 21:28:22 +1100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Nov 2001 10:34:17.0276 (UTC) FILETIME=[6A3AB7C0:01C16A9C]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Christopher Faylor" <cgf AT redhat DOT com>


> On Sun, Nov 11, 2001 at 03:44:57PM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Christopher Faylor" <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
> >
> >> 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.
> >
> >Actually it won't - we already create .lnk files for the start menu.
(It
> >was aiming to reduce that overhead that caused my question.
>
> AFAIK, it isn't creating cygwin links.  It's creating Windows lnk
files,
> isn't it?

I had a look at Corinnna's .lnk code in cygwin, and they "ain't that
different".

> >>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.  >
> >
> >Not really, because the inital bootstrap may well have shortcuts in
it.
>
> If you say so.  I don't see why it would.  That would seem to be
counter
> to the reason for splitting up setup.exe.  I thought that you'd want
> to have all of the cygwin intelligence in the second half.

Some examples I'd be hesitant to put statically into setup.exe
IPC/FIFO's/mmaps.
Running a setup equivalent from the command line in a console.
Linking to a db library dynamically.

However, setup.exe, even a minimal bootstrapping version, cannot
guarantee that no boot strap package will have sym or hardlinks. Take
cygwin for instance - libc.a is a link to libcygwin.a. That package is a
requirement to bootstrap :].

> So, I guess I don't have an opinion on this.  I should point out that
> the "new" links will actually work better on remote shares so maybe
> that's enough of an argument for them.
>
> I'd like to get Corinna's opinion on this, though.

Absolutely. I'm really impartial on this change.

Rob