At 02:47 AM 5/3/2002, Mellman Thomas wrote: > >>-----Original Message----- > >>From: Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > >>Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2002 5:14 PM > >>To: Mellman Thomas; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>Subject: RE: using Windows links > >> > >> > >>At 10:53 AM 5/2/2002, Mellman Thomas wrote: > >>> >>>Thus, cygwin is throwing in the towel on link/Shortcut > >>> >>compatibility, but I think it was forgotten to remove some of > >>> >>the code. > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >>Wrong on both accounts. The default Cygwin symbolic link > >>> >>creation mode > >>> >>makes shortcuts. These shortcuts are usable directly by > >>> >>Explorer and other > >>> >>Windows apps that understand Windows shortcuts. Shortcuts > >>> >>made by Windows > >>> >>are not grokked as Cygwin shortcuts however. There's nothing > >>> >>"wrong" here. > >>> > >>> > >>>I didn't use the word "wrong". I only said, "non-compatible". > >>> > >> > >> > >>OK, let's be literal. You made the following sweeping and > >>unsubstantiated > >>statement: > >> > >>"...cygwin is throwing in the towel on link/Shortcut compatibility..." > >> > >>I'm simply stating that this is not true, which I explained > >>above. The > >>current implementation is as compatible as possible given the > >>limitations of > >>shortcuts and the mismatch they have with POSIX paths. If > >>you want to know > >>more about the design issues there, check out the developers > >>archive. It was > >>all discussed there. Of course, no one will object if > >>someone finds a nice > >>solution that allows even more compatibility. But a review > >>of what's been > >>done and discussed already is beneficial to keep from > >>reintroducing bygone > >>ideas and threads. > > >I've accepted that the current approach is the most economical - >most practical approach for now. I'll buy your view that the >implementation is "as compatible as possible given ...". > >I don't understand why my statement that "cygwin is throwing in the >towel on link/Shortcut compatibility" so disturbs you. I don't think >you can say the statement is not true. It IS true that cygwin is >wonderfully compatible in one direction, but (thanks to my employer) >I've still got to swim in and out of this damn MS sewage. So bi-directional >compatibility would be nice. But I'm still thankful for what I've got.
I will agree that the current situation is not bi-directionally compatible. Whether or not the current state is akin to Cygwin throwing in any towel on bi-directional compatibility depends on MS facilities to support this and/or future patches from net contributors to Cygwin. Like I said though, if you're interested in details of the current state, check the email archives. Larry Hall [EMAIL PROTECTED] RFK Partners, Inc. http://www.rfk.com 838 Washington Street (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office Holliston, MA 01746 (508) 893-9889 - FAX -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
