From: Paul G. <pga...@at...> - 2002-03-16 23:05:31
|
On 16 Mar 2002 at 17:06, Earnie Boyd wrote: > Earnie Boyd wrote: > > > > It is my opinion that symlink support for MSYS should only be > > handled via the now supported ln shell script. The version 1.0.6 > > release will remove the ln.exe from the distribution and replaces it > > with an ln script using `cp -a foo bar' syntax. I can reduce the > > time required to do file operations if I remove the symlink coding > > or at least always return a non-symlink value. > > > > Comments? It's always easier to not have to deal with specific symlink definitions -- maybe I am just lazy. I seldom deal with symlinks anyway, don't ever seem to have much reason to do so most of the time unless they are pre-coded in some way shape or form. Paul G. > > > > It ain't going to be easy. > > Earnie. > > _________________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com > > > _______________________________________________ > Mingw-msys mailing list > Min...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mingw-msys |
From: Paul G. <pga...@at...> - 2002-03-16 23:13:38
|
On 16 Mar 2002 at 17:06, Earnie Boyd wrote: > Earnie Boyd wrote: > > > > It is my opinion that symlink support for MSYS should only be > > handled via the now supported ln shell script. The version 1.0.6 > > release will remove the ln.exe from the distribution and replaces it > > with an ln script using `cp -a foo bar' syntax. I can reduce the > > time required to do file operations if I remove the symlink coding > > or at least always return a non-symlink value. > > > > Comments? > > > > It ain't going to be easy. Would it be easier to leave it alone and let it go into deprecation? I have to wonder how often people really need symlinks. I mean, under cygwin, that being a posix/unixy kind of environment, I can understand the need for symlinks. If for no other reason they give the folks moving to Win32 platforms more excuses to leave things as they are during the port of whatever posix/unixy thing they are porting. If MSYS is supposed to be a Win32 based platform environment, then what is the need for symlinks (aside from rxvt, et. al.) in the first place? Given the latter, a simple cp might be more than sufficient. NT4 does support soft symlinks. Don't think Win9x does, and am unsure as to whether XP or Win2k support any sort of symlink facilities. Sounds like a trade-off between including the necessary overhead to support ln.exe or not. For a minimalist environment, is symlink support necessary? Paul G. |
From: Earnie B. <ear...@ya...> - 2002-03-17 13:16:09
|
"Paul G." wrote: > > On 16 Mar 2002 at 17:06, Earnie Boyd wrote: > > > Earnie Boyd wrote: > > > > > > It is my opinion that symlink support for MSYS should only be > > > handled via the now supported ln shell script. The version 1.0.6 > > > release will remove the ln.exe from the distribution and replaces it > > > with an ln script using `cp -a foo bar' syntax. I can reduce the > > > time required to do file operations if I remove the symlink coding > > > or at least always return a non-symlink value. > > > > > > Comments? > > > > > > > It ain't going to be easy. > > Would it be easier to leave it alone and let it go into deprecation? It's always easiest to just leave it alone. I don't know what "let it go into deprecation" has to do with what needs to be done. The DLL uses precious cycles for this seemingly unneeded task, that will never deprecate on it's own. The question is, does anyone see any reason to keep the current symlink method(s) as a part of msys-1.0.dll? Earnie. _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com |