Fred Kulack wrote:
> On 08/03/2005 at 03:42:34 PM, cygwin-owner wrote:
>
> I don't know the original posters environment or exactly what problems
> he's trying to solve, but I'd recommend liberal use of the cygwin command
> line,
> mount points, symlinks and
> cygpath-dash-w-using-scripts-and-a
On 08/03/2005 at 03:42:34 PM, cygwin-owner wrote:
>From the links below it seems that windows itself doesn't handle NTFS
junctions points well. Sounds like another feature that wasn't well
thought
out, kind of like NTFS alternate data streams.
--- end of excerpt ---
I don't know the original pos
On Aug 4 12:44, Frank-Michael Moser wrote:
> Corinna,
http://cygwin.com/acronyms/#TOFU reformatted.
> Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > To me, junction points are more like mount points,
> > not symlinks. Since mount points are transparent and don't act like
> > symlinks to cp/mv/rm and friends,
Corinna,
I understand your objections but I think this all could be seen from an
alternate point of view.
As you said, JPs, as they are implemented, are less useful than real
POSIX symlinks. Now instead of miming Microsofts intention with the JPs,
why not simply considering them consequently as s
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Baksik, Frederick (NM75)
> From the links below it seems that windows itself doesn't
> handle NTFS junctions points well. Sounds like another
> feature that wasn't well thought out, kind of like NTFS
> alternate data streams.
> -Original Message-
> From: Frank-Michael Moser
> Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2005 10:54 AM
> Subject: Re: Cygwin and NTFS Junction Points
>
> Unfortunately "find -xdev" does not work because junction
> points also can point to target folders on the s
On Aug 3 11:57, Brian Dessent wrote:
> Richard Campbell wrote:
>
> > > To some degree, Junction Points are more like directory HARD links,
> > > rather than symlinks.
> >
> > What degree is this?
> >
> > Everything I can see seems to say junction points function as symlinks
> > for directories,
Brian Dessent wrote:
You can't use a junction point to make a relative link, as you can with
symbolic links. That makes them significantly less useful.
But still a giant leap from setting up drive letters with subst, which
used to be the only Windows way I know to introduce a layer of
indire
Richard Campbell wrote:
> > To some degree, Junction Points are more like directory HARD links,
> > rather than symlinks.
>
> What degree is this?
>
> Everything I can see seems to say junction points function as symlinks
> for directories, with retargeting, dangling, and fixing options.
>
> I
Eric Blake wrote:
To some degree, Junction Points are more like directory HARD links,
rather than symlinks.
What degree is this?
Everything I can see seems to say junction points function as symlinks
for directories, with retargeting, dangling, and fixing options.
I admit the documentati
> To some degree, Junction Points are more like directory HARD links,
> rather than symlinks.
I agree. Most of the behaviour I referred to as bizarre is the behaviour
of hard-linked directories. The mentioned NTFSLink tool so mostly
emulates symlink behaviour for JPs.
> Are you offering? cygwi
Ugh - top-posting. Reformatted.
> >>Since I have discovered NTFS Junction Points (NTFS 5.0+) I'm using them
> >>frequently to symbolically link directories in a POSIX conformous way:
> >>The junction points (JP) are transparent to *any* program using the
> >>filesystem.
To some degree, Junction
Unfortunately "find -xdev" does not work because junction points also
can point to target folders on the same filesystem. Also I meant that
using fileutils like cp, mv, and rm should transparently respect
junction points and handle them in like symlinks under Linux as I
described it in my post.
At
On Aug 3 14:32, Frank-Michael Moser wrote:
> Since I have discovered NTFS Junction Points (NTFS 5.0+) I'm using them
> frequently to symbolically link directories in a POSIX conformous way:
> The junction points (JP) are transparent to *any* program using the
> filesystem.
>
> Unfortunately there
On Thu, Jul 31, 2003 at 09:58:47AM -0400, Larry Hall wrote:
>Oh, I see. Did you try jiggering the fizzle? How about reconstructing
>the scrontz manually? Hm, if that doesn't do it, you're hosed. You'll
>need a new computer to fix this.
That's usually the best solution. Either that or break th
> -Original Message-
> From: Menon, Girish (MED, WIPRO-GE MED)
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thu, July 31, 2003 1:50 PM
> To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> Subject: RE: cygwin and NTFS
>
>
> Nope. That did not work.
Did you set cygwin environment
nesday, July 30, 2003 11:02 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: cygwin and NTFS
On Wed, 30 Jul 2003, Menon, Girish (MED, WIPRO-GE MED) wrote:
Does anybody know of any issues that cygwin 1.3.22 has with NTFS?
Here's what happened.
So far, I have been using cygwin 1.3.10 on NTFS with
Nope. That did not work.
-Original Message-
From: Elfyn McBratney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 11:02 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: cygwin and NTFS
On Wed, 30 Jul 2003, Menon, Girish (MED, WIPRO-GE MED) wrote:
> Does anybody know of any issues t
Elfyn McBratney wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jul 2003, Menon, Girish (MED, WIPRO-GE MED) wrote:
Does anybody know of any issues that cygwin 1.3.22 has with NTFS?
Here's what happened.
So far, I have been using cygwin 1.3.10 on NTFS with no problems.
Recently, I upgraded cygwin to 1.3.22 and all of a sudd
On Wed, 30 Jul 2003, Menon, Girish (MED, WIPRO-GE MED) wrote:
> Does anybody know of any issues that cygwin 1.3.22 has with NTFS?
>
> Here's what happened.
>
> So far, I have been using cygwin 1.3.10 on NTFS with no problems.
> Recently, I upgraded cygwin to 1.3.22 and all of a sudden I am start
20 matches
Mail list logo
