This is the mail archive of the
cygwin@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: New symlinks.
- To: Cygwin <cygwin at cygwin dot com>
- Subject: Re: New symlinks.
- From: Bjoern Kahl AG Resy <kahl at informatik dot uni-kl dot de>
- Date: 2001年2月27日 20:07:22 +0100 (MET)
Hallo!
Anny comments to the patter outline below the quote?
On 2001年2月27日, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 27, 2001 at 05:17:30PM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >On Tue, Feb 27, 2001 at 10:40:26AM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> >> I *really* don't think that the .lnk extension should show up when
> >> doing an "ls -l" as was suggested in another post.
> >> I am, as always, more concerned about supporting this feature in
> >> the long run. If allowing foo.lnk to be referenced explicitly causes
> >> even one person confusion, I don't think that it is worth it. It
> >> is certainly non-UNIX behavior.
> >I think it's correct behaviour. Cygwin doesn't show the .lnk
> >suffix by itself but nevertheless, to return a `file not found'
> >on `ls foo.lnk' wouldn't be correct. It's simply the truth:
> >The file `foo.lnk' exists and is a symlink.
> Again, it is surprising behavior. Such a file would not exist on UNIX.
> I personally think that we should hide implementation details like
> "Oh yeah, we added a .lnk extension to all of our symbolic links"
> from the user. There is no reason for them to know or care about
> this detail.
Exactly. So How should it work?
(Pseudo-code)
("filename" refers to posix-name, filehaeder referes to content of
Win-File "filename.lnk" or Win-File "filename", which ever exist)
(l)stat() : if ( (filename =="*.lnk") && (fileheader != shortcut))
return fileinfo
else if ( (filename =="*.lnk") && (fileheader == shortcut))
return ENOENT
else if ( (filename !="*.lnk") && (fileheader == shortcut))
return (link)fileinfo (process as symlink)
else
return return fileinfo
open() : same pattern
dirent() : if ( (filename =="*.lnk") && (fileheader == shortcut))
ignore file
else
list file
In short:
Let existing Win-name be "foo.lnk":
posix-
name | valid shortcut | not shortcut
-------+----------------+-----------------
foo | process as | ENOENT
| symlink |
-------+----------------+-----------------
foo.lnk| ENOENT | return fileinfo/
| | filehandle
Let existing Win-name be "foo":
posix-
name | valid shortcut | not shortcut
-------+----------------+-----------------
foo | process as | return fileinfo/
| symlink | filehandle
-------+----------------+-----------------
foo.lnk| ENOENT | ENOENT
| |
There is no existing file with Win-name "foo" or "foo.lnk":
Process as usual e.g. return ENOENT or create file of given
name and extension
(I hope, I do not mixed things here ...)
Problem:
What to do, if there is both: a file with Win-Name "foo and
a file with Win-Name "foo.lnk" ?
If none of it is a valid shortcut, then that is no problem at all.
both are stat() and open() able.
If "foo.lnk" is a valid shortcut, then I would say the real
file "foo" should win. That is, the shortcut would be invisible.
This is consistent with Unix, where you cant have a file and a
symlink of the same name in one directory.
Bjoern
--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Dipl.-Phys. Bjoern Kahl +++ AG Embedded Systems and Robotics (RESY) |
| Informatics Faculty +++ Building 48 +++ University of Kaiserslautern|
| phone: +49-631-205-2654 +++ www: http://resy.informatik.uni-kl.de |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple