On Jan 24 06:45, Eric Blake wrote: > According to Corinna Vinschen on 1/24/2007 2:48 AM: > > This looks rather like a problem with the exe magic in coreutils. FWIW, > > I never liked the idea to create "foo.exe.lnk" symlinks. They only slow > > down the symlink processing in Cygwin. > > Should we get rid of the special processing in cygwin 1.7.0? > [...] > I'm having a tough time thinking of any scenarios that will break in a new > installation if we drop .exe.lnk support; and I'm only slightly worried > that existing cases, such as Pierre's example of /usr/sbin/sendmail.lnk > vs. /usr/sbin/sendmail.exe.lnk, tripping up users. I would be in favor of
I appreciate the idea to remove it, but I have long ago already convinced myself that we will have problems removing it. A quick look into /bin on my machine, which has basically a standard install of roughly 30-40% of the available packages in the distro, shows that existing installs have a non-marginal number of .exe.lnk files: $ find /bin -type l | grep \\.exe /bin/awk.exe /bin/c++.exe /bin/captoinfo.exe /bin/cc.exe /bin/csh.exe /bin/etags.exe /bin/f77.exe /bin/flex++.exe /bin/gunzip.exe /bin/i686-pc-cygwin-c++.exe /bin/i686-pc-cygwin-g++.exe /bin/i686-pc-cygwin-gcc.exe /bin/infotocap.exe /bin/manpath.exe /bin/red.exe /bin/reset.exe /bin/rtin.exe /bin/tclsh.exe /bin/wish.exe /bin/zcat.exe Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Project Co-Leader cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
