On Mar 11 15:57, L A Walsh wrote: > Andrey Repin wrote: > > Greetings, L A Walsh! > > > You say that throwing out the MS-designed ability > > > to mount a filesystem subtree and treat them the same as another > > > feature they added, "symlinks", is a benefit? > > > > Where did I said that? > --- > Are you not suggesting treating JUNCTIONs the same > as SYMLINKs and treating them *both* as 'symlinks' in Cygwin? > > > > > They added symlinks in Vista to create a feature, > > > similar to *nix symlinks. I don't see how throwing out mount > > > points is anything but a BUG -- a removal of a useful feature. > > > > You're insinuating. > --- > Please clarify -- but it seems you want to > disregard the differences between JUNCTIONs and SYMLINK[D]s. > Is that not so? How is that insinuating? > > > > That's a reason for bug reporting. > --- > I have brought it up before. It is considered > standard for some installers to check where they are being > installed. As near as I can tell it's cygwin treating JUNCTIONs > as *nix "symlinks" that is the problem -- thus my request that > JUNCTIONs not be treated identically as Win SYMLINKs. > > > > > We're not talking Linux or VirtualBox issues here, do we? > --- > I'm, talking parallel features and parallel problems. > Installing products on Linux or cygwin may check for and > complain about symlinks leading to their installation directory. > > The cure in both is to use bind-type mounts and > remove any symlink usage in their base path.
As I wrote (multiple times now?), we can handle dir junctions as symlinks or as normal directories. We can not handle them as mounts or bind mounts, unless you do this explicaitly in /etc/fstab or /etc/fstab.d/$USER Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Maintainer cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
