Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 14:17:49 +0300 (IDT) From: Eli Zaretskii X-Sender: eliz AT is To: Laurynas Biveinis cc: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com Subject: Re: New function: lstat() In-Reply-To: <39894E1A.6BDD6FBD@softhome.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com Precedence: bulk On Thu, 3 Aug 2000, Laurynas Biveinis wrote: > Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > I thought we already made that decision. > > I'm sorry, I've missed that. All I've seen there were technical > comments. That's what they were: technical comments. I don't think someone said that symlink support should not be included. DJ, do you recall something different? At least my comments were merely meant to point out possible adverse effects of this support. But since no one was seriously bothered by those potential problems, I don't see any obstacles to commit the changes. If you think they are ready to be commited, that is. > Symlinks won't help to minimize FAQs, that's why I ask > for political decision. Programs compiled with 2.03 won't > understand symlinks. Also low level programs which use ISO/POSIX > functions instead of DOS ones might be broken. I believe these aspects were already considered. If someone has second thoughts about that, please speak up.