> Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2006 16:18:47 +0200 > From: Alessandro Vesely <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >> And what about realpath? > > > > The same, except that it should fail if the file or its parent > > directory doesn't exist, and it should ``resolve links'', whatever > > that may mean on Windows. > > Hmm... it will be necessary to consider win9x/ME differently than > win2k and later versions that have restricted symlink capability.
Do you mean the .lnk (a.k.a. shortcut) files? If so, I wouldn't call them symlinks, not even restricted ones. As long as most file I/O APIs don't follow links, we are better off behaving as if there are no symlinks at all. > With mount points one cannot reach "symlink/../not-in-cwd". To be > consistent with that, we should first compute ".."'s and then fail. > Correct? Sorry, I don't follow: what mount points? > Probably that's going to change again for Vista, see > http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en-us/fileio/fs/creating_symbolic_links.asp > > Should I try a patch? The best way to prepare for symlinks in Vista is to have a realpath emulation somewhere in w32/ subdirectory. Then we could define HAVE_REALPATH in config.h.W32 and things will ``just work''. I don't have access to a Vista machine, so I won't be able to test symlink support. _______________________________________________ Make-w32 mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/make-w32
