New symlinks.

[Heribert Dahms]

Hi Cliff,

yes, and the other way around, since I never saw an *ix
where *.lnk has a special meaning, somebody may be
surprised now about inability to have a symlink foo -> bar
and a plain file foo.lnk in the same directory, which was
possible in earlier cygwin releases:

b20$  ln -s bar foo
b20$ >foo.lnk
b20$ ls -l
total 1
lrw-r--r--   1 0        everyone       14 Feb 27 23:25 foo -> bar
-rw-r--r--   1 0        everyone        0 Feb 27 23:25 foo.lnk

Bye, Heribert (heribert_dahms@icon-gmbh.de)

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Cliff Hones [SMTP:cliff@aonix.co.uk]
> Sent:	Tuesday, February 27, 2001 19:41
> To:	cygwin@cygwin.com
> Subject:	Re: New symlinks.
> 
> 
	[Heribert]  [snip]

> But Cygwin can never succeed in performing this kind of file mapping
> perfectly; there are already difficulties with mixed-case (no-one
> expects "touch foo; touch FOO; ls" to be Unix-consistent), and with
> the treatment of .exe files which unfortunately breaks many makefiles.
> 
> So maybe we are worrying too much about hiding the implementation.
> 
> Just a thought - if a Windows directory contains both foo (a plain file)
> and a foo.lnk shortcut, which should Cygwin open, stat etc. see?
> 

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple