On Jul 19 17:31, Jon Turney wrote: > I'm not sure this is the best idea, since it adds more configurations that > aren't going to get tested often, but the idea is that this would enable > proper and consistent control of the symlink type used from setup, as > discussed in [1]. > > [1] https://cygwin.com/pipermail/cygwin-apps/2021-May/041327.html
Why isn't it sufficient to use 'winsymlinks:native' from setup? The way we express symlinks shouldn't be a user choice, really. The winsymlinks thingy was only ever introduced in a desperate attempt to improve access to symlinks from native tools, and I still don't see a way around that. But either way, what's the advantage in allowing the user complete control over the type, even if the type is only useful in Cygwin? Corinna
