On Mon, 29 Mar 2004, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 29, 2004 at 02:40:23PM -0800, Peter A. Castro wrote:
> >On Mon, 29 Mar 2004, Peter A. Castro wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 29 Mar 2004, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
> >> > On Mon, 29 Mar 2004, zzapper wrote:
> >> > > On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 11:40:59 +0100, wrote:
> >> > > >On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 10:09:28 -0500 (EST), wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > >>An updated version of zsh (zsh-4.2.0-1) has been released and should be
> >> > > >>at a mirror near you real soon.
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >Hi I saw zsh 4.2.0 download this morning when I ran my daily setup
> >> > > >however (having reset my PC as requested)
> >> > > >
> >> > > >zsh --version
> >> > > >zsh 4.1.1 (i686-pc-cygwin)
> >> > > >
> >> > > >>whence zsh
> >> > > >/usr/bin/zsh
> >> > > >
> >> > > I had to rename zsh-4.2.0.exe to zsh.exe myself (is that
> >> > > normal/correct?)
> >> > >
> >> > > zzapper (vim, cygwin, wiki & zsh)
> >> >
> >> > Sounds like a packaging bug. The archive contains "/usr/bin/zsh.exe" as a
> >> > symbolic link to "/usr/bin/zsh-4.2.0.exe". This will cause zsh to not
> >> > work from batch files and shortcuts (!).
> >
> >(I'm tired) I just noticed, it's not a symlink, its a hardlink. As such,
> >it'll materialize as if it was a real file in the filesystems and native
> >Windows programs will see it as a normal file, not a link.
>
> Unfortunately, setup.exe doesn't recognize hard links, AFAIK.
That's Ok. Hard links are more for effiency than anything else. The
current behaviour of setup is, apparently, to duplicate the linked-to
file contents, which is just fine. If/when hardlinks are actually
supported, that'll be Ok too.
> cgf
--
Peter A. Castro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> or <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Cats are just autistic Dogs" -- Dr. Tony Attwood
--
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/
