Christopher Faylor wrote: > On Sat, Nov 10, 2001 at 11:29:09PM -0500, Charles Wilson wrote: > >>Robert Collins wrote: >> >> >>>When extracting tarballs, should setup create 'native' symlinks or magic >>>cookie symlinks? >>> >>I thought the magic cookie (!<symlink>target) symlinks were deprecated. >>Currently, "ln -s" makes "special" .lnk shortcuts; I think setup should do >>the same -- there should be no difference between the following scenarios: >> > > They're not exactly deprecated. I think Corinna has had second thoughts > about the current method, actually. Or, maybe she just didn't like > having cygwin interpret native Windows .lnk files.
Well, the old style symlinks, relying as they do on having the "system" bit set, don't work correctly on shares, IIRC. However, I agree that cygwin shouldn't try to interpret "normal" windows .lnk files -- but I thought Corinna put heuristics in so that cygwin wouldn't do that. > I don't anticipate that they will ever go away, so I think we should stick > with having setup.exe create the "old style" method. It will keep the > code size down in setup.exe. > > Or, maybe this will become a non-issue when/if setup.exe is split in two > since we'll be able to use cygwin tar at that point. That's true. --Chuck
