X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to djgpp-workers-bounces using -f
Message-ID: <455C3A7F.1020501@licejus.lt>
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 11:16:31 +0100
From: Laurynas Biveinis <lauras AT licejus DOT lt>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.8 (Windows/20061025)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: New symlink format for DJ 2.04
References: <OFA29320C7 DOT D88349F6-ON8725721E DOT 0060583A-8725721E DOT 0060E5FB AT seagate DOT com>
In-Reply-To: <OFA29320C7.D88349F6-ON8725721E.0060583A-8725721E.0060E5FB@seagate.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 0649-0, 2006.11.15), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com

Gordon DOT Schumacher AT seagate DOT com rašė:
> I have a curiosity about the new format that was chosen for symlinks in
> DJGPP 2.04.  I'm guessing that there was a good reason, I just wanted to
> understand it - and if there wasn't a good reason, to see if this is a
> possibility...

Heh, it was back in 1999 (yup, that 2.04 release is taking a bit of 
time)...  I am the author of symlink support, so I'll try to answer your 
question.

> Is there a reason that CygWin and DJGPP can't share the same symlink
> format?  Is it simply a question of simplicity in DJGPP's case, because
> CygWin's appears to contain binary?  

The consensus on djgpp-workers list was not to use CygWin format, 
although it has been considered. The main reason, IIRC, is that CygWin 
sets Hidden + (read only? system?) attributes, which do not play nice 
with user programs. (You want to see the symlinks in your directory when 
you list it, don't you.) So DJGPP went with its own format.

 > (I think that CygWin's is at least
 > mostly compatible with Windows shortcuts, but I'm not positive.)

Now it is. Probably it was in 1999 too.

--
Laurynas