Message-Id: <200008111759.NAA08472@delorie.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 21:02:10 +0200
To: Martin DOT Stromberg AT lu DOT erisoft DOT se
X-Mailer: Emacs 20.6 (via feedmail 8.2.emacs20_6 I) and Blat ver 1.8.5b
From: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
CC: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to: <200008111619.SAA08167@lws256.lu.erisoft.se> (message from Martin
	Stromberg on Fri, 11 Aug 2000 18:19:14 +0200 (MET DST))
Subject: Re: Patch: symlink()
References:  <200008111619 DOT SAA08167 AT lws256 DOT lu DOT erisoft DOT se>
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

> From: Martin Stromberg <Martin DOT Stromberg AT lu DOT erisoft DOT se>
> Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 18:19:14 +0200 (MET DST)
> 
> I'd think the DJGPP stub .EXE symlink support could still be very
> useful. Otherwise we won't be able to launch symlink .EXEs from
> COMMAND.COM.

You are right, but you don't lose the stub symlinks.  You only lose
the possibility of creating them with "ln -s".  You can still create
them with `stubify' and `stubedit', as before, and the underlying
feature in the stub will not be removed.

Supporting the stub symlinks together with the simulated symlinks in
the library would create all kinds of unnecessary complications which
are better avoided.