> it'd be helpful to know in which package the cygwin symlink
> functionality is materialized in, so as to watch for
> appropriate update announcement(s). I suspect it's embodied
> at least in both coreutils and cygwin1.dll, but am not sure.
>
> might somone endeavor to answer this? thanks,
>
On Thu, 3 Feb 2005, Jeff.Hodges wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 01, 2005 at 11:43:04AM -0800, Jeff.Hodges wrote:
> > >> On Jan 31 12:25, Jeff.Hodges wrote:
> > >> > corinna-cygwin said:
> > >> > > There's a patch in current Cygwin CVS which should solve the icon
> > >> > > problem.
> > >> >
> > >> > Super.
> On Tue, Feb 01, 2005 at 11:43:04AM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> On Jan 31 12:25, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> >> > > There's a patch in current Cygwin CVS which should solve the icon
> >> > > problem.
> >> >
> >> > Super. Tho, will fixing "the icon problem
On Tue, Feb 01, 2005 at 11:43:04AM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> On Jan 31 12:25, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
>> > > There's a patch in current Cygwin CVS which should solve the icon
>> > > problem.
>> >
>> > Super. Tho, will fixing "the icon problem" also fix the be
> On Jan 31 12:25, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> > > There's a patch in current Cygwin CVS which should solve the icon
> > > problem.
> >
> > Super. Tho, will fixing "the icon problem" also fix the behavior dichotomy
> > between Explorer and Open/Save dialogs (which I not
On Jan 31 12:25, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> > There's a patch in current Cygwin CVS which should solve the icon
> > problem.
>
> Super. Tho, will fixing "the icon problem" also fix the behavior dichotomy
> between Explorer and Open/Save dialogs (which I noted in my origi
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> There's a patch in current Cygwin CVS which should solve the icon
> problem.
Super. Tho, will fixing "the icon problem" also fix the behavior dichotomy
between Explorer and Open/Save dialogs (which I noted in my original posting
in this thread)?
> If you want to use
On Jan 27 14:16, Jan Hlavacek wrote:
> I am not on the list, but I hope this will get through. I came across
> this discussion while I was searching for an answer to similar problem.
There are a couple of postings in the ML archives, all from this month,
which should explain the behaviour pretty
Hi,
I am not on the list, but I hope this will get through. I came across
this discussion while I was searching for an answer to similar problem.
Maybe describing my experience will help you figure out what is going
on. Unfortunately, I have absolutely no experience with windows
programming, so
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> If this were to come to pass and not be addressed by the cygwin
> community, then it wouldn't make any sense to have the the default
> (or even option) of creating cygwin symlinks as "winsymlinks".
oops. add "...on XP and possibly derivatives thereof."
JeffH
--
Uns
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> He clearly complained about MS-Software that cannot handle
> cygwin-created links, and you're talking about cygwin understand its
> own symlinks
correct. thanks.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> Apologies. I took the word "altogether" to mean "completely" but
> obviously mi
On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 10:33:47PM +0100, Sven K?hler wrote:
>>>I suspect it's important in the longer term to track this down because
>>>they (MSFT) ~could~ make further changes down the road that break
>>>cygwin-created symlinks altogether (from the windoze perspective),
>>>which'd more than j
I suspect it's important in the longer term to track this down because they
(MSFT) ~could~ make further changes down the road that break cygwin-created
symlinks altogether (from the windoze perspective), which'd more than just
"annoying".
No, Microsoft is not going to break things so that cygwin
On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 08:25:26AM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> I'm glad that you're talking about "us" as a group. Anybody interested
>> in tracking that down?
>
>I'm not in a position to hack code on this unfortunately, but I can offer to
>test.
>
>I suspect it's important in the longer t
> I'm glad that you're talking about "us" as a group. Anybody interested
> in tracking that down?
I'm not in a position to hack code on this unfortunately, but I can offer to
test.
I suspect it's important in the longer term to track this down because they
(MSFT) ~could~ make further changes d
On Jan 15 08:17, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Seems to me we ought to see if we can't update the symlink() impl such that
> this is addressed. I'm betting there's some new attributes or whatever (as
> Igor notes) that've been added to symlinks in XP and if we can figure out
> what
> that is, and
Thanks for looking at this Igor. Glad to know it isn't just me.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> And, lo and behold, on a plain WinXP SP1 (note, no SP2) I get the
> same behavior.
aha. innaresting. Well, I installed vanilla XP and then copied over a buncha
directories from my old Win2k box, including
On Jan 14 20:05, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Jan 2005, Jeff.Hodges wrote:
> > Mostly these are symlinks to directories which I use to more
> > conveniently traipse around my filesystem. This was true of all my
> > cygwin install/upgrades on Win2k from say 1999 thru 2004. The native Win
>
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005, Jeff.Hodges wrote:
> I've searched this list and googled and all, and can't find anything
> about this issue, so perhaps it's some cockpit error on my part.
> Anyways, here's the issue/question...
>
> cygwin symlinks (aka cygwin-created windows shortcuts) seem to work
> di
I've searched this list and googled and all, and can't find anything about
this issue, so perhaps it's some cockpit error on my part. Anyways, here's the
issue/question...
cygwin symlinks (aka cygwin-created windows shortcuts) seem to work
differently, and incorrectly, from the windows pers
20 matches
Mail list logo
