On Jan 14 20:05, Igor Pechtchanski wrote: > On Fri, 14 Jan 2005, Jeff.Hodges wrote: > > Mostly these are symlinks to directories which I use to more > > conveniently traipse around my filesystem. This was true of all my > > cygwin install/upgrades on Win2k from say 1999 thru 2004. The native Win > > filesystem has been NTFS in all cases, fwiw.
2001. The shortcuts have been added to Cygwin in 2001. > > 1. cygwin-created (via "ln -s") symlinks/shortcuts pointing to a > > directory are displayed in windows file dialogs with the windows default > > "funky file" icon (I dunno what it's actual name is) rather than the > > windows folder icon as used to be the case on win2k/cygwin. > > > > 2. cygwin-created (via "ln -s") symlinks/shortcuts pointing to a > > directory are displayed in some windows file-open or file-save dialogs, > > but not in others. On win2k/cygwin, they were always displayed and > > always behaved exactly like windows-created shortcuts pointing to a > > directory. In terms of how they are behaving on WinXP/cygwin.. > > > > 2.1. In the cases where they *are* displayed in windows file-open or > > file-save dialogs, e.g. using windows version of OpenOffice 1.1.3, the > > program in question attempts to either open the symlink/shortcut file > > itself or overwrite it, respectively. > > > > 2.2. In the cases where they "are not* displayed in the windows dialog > > (whether open or save), e.g. as done by Firefox 1.0 in the file-save > > case, well, the symlink/shortcut simply isn't listed in the dialog, when > > on win2k/cygwin they were displayed (and behaved) just fine. > > Hmm, interesting. I've never noticed this, but your mail prompted me to > look on my own machine. And, lo and behold, on a plain WinXP SP1 (note, > no SP2) I get the same behavior. But they work in Windows Explorer, nevertheless. We're not in control of the icon used by Windows. As soon as we do, the shortcut is not a Cygwin shortcut anymore and it's saved by tar as a file rather than a symlink. > I've noticed this. Further, after a quick look at the structure of the > symlinks[*] shows that the shortcuts created by WinXP have much more stuff > in them (513 bytes vs. 115 bytes), and they seem to have most of the stuff > (comments and paths) in Unicode. I suspect that WinXP doesn't really deal > well with non-Unicode shortcuts. > > Perhaps an update to Cygwin's symlink() implementation is in order? The > one that's there now actually has the structure of a Windows symlink > hard-coded in (which apparently fails on XP). See path.cc in > src/winsup/cygwin. <http://cygwin.com/acronyms/#PTC>. It has been done so for speed. And it doesn't really fail. The shortcut is still a shortcut in Windows Explorer. I'm wondering if it's really the Unicodeness of the shortcut which makes the difference. Usually shortcuts generated in Windows Explorer are much longer anyway. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Project Co-Leader mailto:cygwin@cygwin.com Red Hat, Inc. -- 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/