Message-ID: <38399784.4E3708E4@softhome.net>
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 21:20:36 +0200
From: Laurynas Biveinis <lauras AT softhome DOT net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; I)
X-Accept-Language: lt,en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: Symlinks...
References: <Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 991122131240 DOT 4922C-100000 AT is>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-4
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com

Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Nov 1999, Martin Stromberg wrote:
> > In this case it's the numerical tail that worries me. What will happen
> > when a user tries to follow it in plain DOZE (it was unzipped in
> > WINDOZE)?
> 
> Sorry, I still don't get the exact scenario.
[snip]
> I don't see any new aspects introduced by the symlinks.

I agree.

> > What will happen if "ln -s
> > a_short.nam a_very_long_name.with.multiple_long_extensions" is done in plain
> > DOZE?
> 
> This will fail because the second file name is an invalid name on DOS.
> So `ln' cannot create it.  It's the same as if you replace "ln -s" with
> "cp".

If the `ln' itself does this check. If you call `symlink()' from your own
code, it isn't done.

Laurynas Biveinis