Greetings, L A Walsh!
> Andrey Repin wrote:
>> I would argue against all junctions being treated blindly.
>> The difference with bind mounts in Linux is that in Linux
>> you don't have the
>> information available within the filesystem itself, and have
>> no other option,
>> than to treat them
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
He's right. The mount point handling in Cygwin is based on the
in-memory mount table.
I'm not wanting a mount point fake. Just wanting it to look
like a normal dir just like the mountvol-junctions.
There's no reasonable way to fake some
reparse point to look
On Mar 9 07:48, L A Walsh wrote:
> Andrey Repin wrote:
> > I would argue against all junctions being treated blindly.
> > The difference with bind mounts in Linux is that in Linux you don't have
> > the
> > information available within the filesystem itself, and have no other
> > option,
> > than
Andrey Repin wrote:
I would argue against all junctions being treated blindly.
The difference with bind mounts in Linux is that in Linux
you don't have the
information available within the filesystem itself, and have
no other option,
than to treat them as regular directories.
Only direct
Greetings, L. A. Walsh!
> Didn't see a response to this, so reposting, as this
> would provide a needed vol and subdir mount facility as
> exists on linux...
> Especially, since there was a misunderstanding of what
> was needed or wanted w/regards to the JUNCTION file-system
> mounts in Windows.
5 matches
Mail list logo