Sender: rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk
Message-ID: <3D1A14C3.8E8CB934@phekda.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 20:23:47 +0100
From: Richard Dawe <rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.19 i586)
X-Accept-Language: de,fr
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: Clio 2.04 packages
References: <10206151751 DOT AA18505 AT clio DOT rice DOT edu> <114252854175 DOT 20020626163908 AT softhome DOT net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com

Hello.

Laurynas Biveinis wrote:
[snip]
> > Why remove the
> > old EXE stubing type symlink - how to run these from command prompt?
> 
> I was thinking about creating new utility 'linkexe' which would be
> based on code from pre-symlink symlink() implementation. Sadly, I
> never got around implementing this.

I don't think you need to write a program. 'stubify' already does this.
 
> > Some sort of documentation on symlinks?)
> 
> I was thinking about that too. However, I was very unsure about what
> should I document. I was using Single UNIX Specification v2 for
> API reference, so documenting that didn't seem necessarry. File format
> is very simple and obvious. Maybe I should document which functions
> support symlinks, which do not, and why?.. Maybe actual symlink
> resolution algorithm?..
[snip]

It would be helpful, if you could document the things you mention (functions
that support symlinks, algorithms). Also there are some issues with FSEXTs:
will they be passed the resolved name or the symlink's name? This needs
documenting.

Thanks, bye, Rich =]

-- 
Richard Dawe [ http://www.phekda.freeserve.co.uk/richdawe/ ]