Re: New symlinks.

[Earnie Boyd <earnie_boyd at yahoo dot com>]

Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Feb 27, 2001 at 10:40:26AM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> > I *really* don't think that the .lnk extension should show up when
> > doing an "ls -l" as was suggested in another post.  That is just an
> > open invitation to increasing mailing list traffic: "How do I get rid
> > of the .lnk extension when I create symlinks????  It doesn't do this
> > on Linux."
> >
> > I am, as always, more concerned about supporting this feature in
> > the long run.  If allowing foo.lnk to be referenced explicitly causes
> > even one person confusion, I don't think that it is worth it.  It
> > is certainly non-UNIX behavior.
> 
> I think it's correct behaviour. Cygwin doesn't show the .lnk
> suffix by itself but nevertheless, to return a `file not found'
> on `ls foo.lnk' wouldn't be correct. It's simply the truth:
> The file `foo.lnk' exists and is a symlink.
> 

I think that .lnk is an attribute of the symlink foo.  It is not the
'filename' as far as Cygwin should be concerned.  There are many
problems with the fact that if I have file foo.exe and I stat foo it
returns true.  It is giving autoconf maintainers a nice challenge for
portability support.  Allowing `ls foo.lnk' could pose even more
problems.

> And FWIW, Cygwin behaves exactly as U/WIN does. I don't know if
> that's an argument but it's at least discussion fodder.
> 

Implementing U/WIN niceties is ok but I don't think that it's an
argument for the way it should work.

Earnie.

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com


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