Re: links

[Christopher Faylor <cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please at cygwin dot com>]

On Thu, Aug 02, 2007 at 10:27:55AM -0700, Brian Dessent wrote:
>Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>
>> The SYSTEM type was the only one until 2001, default until 2002,
>> and still produced by setup.exe.
>
>On that topic...
>
>I always felt it was a bit inconsistent that setup still uses the
>old-style symlink, but obviously it works fine as otherwise there would
>be lots of breakage.  I am tempted to rewrite that code to use the .lnk
>style symlinks, but I don't want to introduce a possible
>destabilization just for aesthetics.  Can you think of any real
>justification for getting rid of these old-style symlinks?

I was just talking to Corinna recently about this.  I think we both
regret having introduced the .lnk style symlinks since they introduce
a lot of headache into the filename processing.

However, that said, I guess it would make sense to convert setup.exe to
use .lnk style symlinks because that would eliminate problems where
remote shares are used.  I think that was one of the primary motivations
for introducing those new-fangled .lnk versions.

cgf

--
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/