On Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 12:47:50PM +0100, Joerg Bruehe wrote:
> AFAIK, no variant of Windows really supports "symbolic links" in
> the general sense known from all current Unix variants (+ Linux).
> They have those ".lnk" shortcuts to call a program and supply
> it with arguments, but they do not support the name resolution
> of a symbolic link somewhere within a path name.
> As a consequence, AFAIK you can not have a symbolic link pointing
> to a directory.
You are right, Windows does not have "symbolic links" as we do under
Unix and its variants. I guess I am showing my Unixness when I use
the term "symbolic links". In Windwos you would call it a "shortcut"
to my knowledge.
> > If I keep TOP as a symbolic link, then only cygwin tools seem to
> > work correctly. I am doing all of this from inside of Cygwin bash
> > shell.
> IMO this is due to the fact that they use their own runtime library
> and _not_ the Windows libraries. Whatever CygWin creates for you,
> Windows (runtime, API, ...) does not recognize it as a "symbolic link".
> Check with the Windows "Explorer" - is it shown / handled as a
Windows "Explorer" does not show it as a directory, but it does
behave like one. If I click on TOP, it takes me to the directory that
it points to.
The Command shell in Windows however, does not follow the shortcut
One of the problems I face is that as I go deeper into the directory
structre, the pathnames get longer and longer, which is why i use the
"symbolic link" TOP. Maybe I should download and try this out with
MSYS and see how it works under that. Regardless, I believe it would
be a nice feature to have if its not there.
Mehul N. Sanghvi email: mehul@...
Superior software is always free! URL: http://kirsun.com/~mehul