native symlink

Jeffrey Altman
Wed Apr 3 16:51:00 GMT 2013

On 4/3/2013 12:32 PM, Larry Hall wrote:
> On 4/3/2013 11:29 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> (*) In your blog you were musing why Cygwin supports lnk files but
>> not native symlinks.  Here's the answer:  lnk files support using
>> POSIX paths.
> And while supporting lnk files does have some benefits for
> interoperability, I think the history of this option is significant.
> At a point in the past, Cygwin symlinks were lnk files by default.
> However, they fell out of favor when support for UTF filenames was added
> to Cygwin.  Given this background, one could certainly posit that lnk file
> support is not in its ascendency and could even be viewed as exactly the
> opposite.  To me, that makes it a weak basis for building an argument to
> add support of new but similar functionality.
> Despite the fact that I'm replying directly to Corinna's statement, I'm
> addressing the above comment to Jeffrey.  Somehow I get the feeling that
> Corinna is aware of the history of this option. ;-)

Larry, Thanks for the additional history,

I wasn't making the argument in favor of native symlinks based upon the
existence of LNK files.  In my blog post I was simply documenting
various approaches that had been used.  LNK files clearly pre-date NTFS
and Reparse Points in general let alone the Microsoft Symlink Reparse
Point.  It was very unclear from the Cygwin sources what the motivations

Jeffrey Altman

More information about the Cygwin-developers mailing list