Greetings, Corinna Vinschen! >> I don't think your original concern is as big a problem as you >> think, as is indicated by the above setup on linux. >> >> I.e. is there some other reason to not treat "linkd" mounts >> the same as "mountvol" mounts -- in a manner equivalent to linux's >> 'bind' mounts? >> >> I.e. I don't see that that linkd which creates a junction-mount >> point, should be treated as a symlink. It would provide valuable >> benefit in cygwin terms in being able to setup directories at >> multiple place like 'bind' does on linux, and be resistant to being >> overwritten like symlinks.
> Look, directory reparse points are, by and large, symlinks to another, > real directory entry. The directory has a primary path, which is its > own path under which it has been created, and the reparse point is just > a pointer to this directory. If that's not a symlink, what is? Uhm, there's two ways to look at it. You may call it a "symlink", but in fact, Linux equivalent of a reparse point is a mount --bind, or, perhaps, a block-type device mounted at specific directory. It's a [literal] filesystem junction (in common meaning of "junction"), while symlink is more like conventional language construct. I.e., you can make a reparse point to local resource, that was not assigned a drive letter. Enough that it's a local filesystem, and you know it's UUID. But you can't make a reparse point to a network share, for example, even if that share is mapped to a drive letter. But you can make a [native] symlink to it. -- WBR, Andrey Repin (anrdae...@yandex.ru) 07.04.2014, <21:55> Sorry for my terrible english... -- 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
