On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 11:20 AM, Andrew DeFaria <and...@defaria.com> wrote: > On 12/15/2011 07:40 PM, Larry Hall (Cygwin) wrote: >> >> I'm having difficulty seeing how what you have described could work unless >> the consumers of these files are looking for symlinks only, which your >> example above contradicts. And both of the ".bashrc" files are registering >> as plain files, so I think you're right that the file system on which they >> reside is coming into play, assuming the output above is from Cygwin's 'ls'. >> But even if you had ".bashrc" and ".bashrc.lnk" with the former being a >> UNIX-form of symlink and the latter being the Cygwin one, I'd still expect >> Cygwin to recognize ".bashrc" first and only go looking for the .lnk version >> if it couldn't find that. > > I would think that Cygwin should see the .lnk version first. No? I guess > not. I thought it worked that way before.
This would be a performance disaster - forcing a check for 'x.lnk' every time the software tried to access file 'x'. I doubt that it worked that way before. >> >> The output of strace may convince you of that as well. ;-) It might >> actually work as you describe it though if >> you can get Cygwin to think that it can't open the former. I could see >> that being the case if the UNIX symlink was created by a user ID Cygwin >> didn't recognize, for example. > > I've backed off to using hardlinks which work on both systems but it doesn't > work for directories. > -- > Andrew DeFaria <http://defaria.com> > Accept that some days you're the pigeon, and some days you're the statue. > > > -- > Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html > FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ > Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html > Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple > -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
