Date: Sun, 14 Nov 1999 15:02:09 +0200 (IST)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: Laurynas Biveinis <lauras AT softhome DOT net>
cc: DJGPP Workers <djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com>
Subject: Re: First alpha symlink patch
In-Reply-To: <3825A32A.3C59A372@softhome.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.991114143728.19268G@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk


On Sun, 7 Nov 1999, Laurynas Biveinis wrote:

> Finally...
> 
> Please review and test it.

I only reviewed the sources, and only superficially for now (too swamped 
for anything else, sorry).  Some comments:

  +  /* LB: we have to remember this here if we want getwd() later */
  +  /* return directory with symlinks.                            */
  +  strcpy(_passed_dir_name, fix_buf);

Are getwd and getcwd documented somewhere to return the symlink name, 
rather than the actual directory name?  If not, perhaps we are better off 
without recording the symlink in some hidden variable?

As for the format of the symlink file: is it a good idea to use the SYS 
attribute?  Such files will not be shown by DIR and other DOS/Windows 
commands, some archivers might skip them, etc.  Perhaps it is better to 
make the symlinks be of some specific size?