This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: Request for Junctions be treated consistently
- From: Linda Walsh <cygwin at tlinx dot org>
- To: cygwin at cygwin dot com
- Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2014 11:34:02 -0700
- Subject: Re: Request for Junctions be treated consistently
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <5336C0DF dot 5080102 at tlinx dot org> <5336C23B dot 2070309 at tlinx dot org> <20140331102745 dot GD23383 at calimero dot vinschen dot de> <533AEBD6 dot 3040209 at tlinx dot org> <20140402084026 dot GM2508 at calimero dot vinschen dot de> <533FE56D dot 5010809 at tlinx dot org> <20140407092342 dot GF2061 at calimero dot vinschen dot de>
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
Look, directory reparse points are, by and large, symlinks to another,
real directory entry. The directory has a primary path, which is its
own path under which it has been created, and the reparse point is just
a pointer to this directory. If that's not a symlink, what is?
What is a mount 'bind' on linux?
You could call it a symlink, but it acts like a mount.
Since both mountd and mountvol form "junctions", and not "symlinks (
as when you use 'mklink'), I'm asking the the junctions be treated
as volume mount points -- or like 'bind' on linux. That way,
I can mount parts of the file system in common in multiple locations
and not have to worry about all the utilities that overwrite symlinks
instead of following them.
But it was intended to allow grafting of the file system
into different locations for ease of administration. Treating them
the same as symlinks removes that ability because most or many of
the linux utils will overwrite symlinks rather than follow them
as they would if it was a mount.
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple