Re: Treating Junctions consistently, as "normal dirs" as w/linux "bind"-type mount

2017-03-10 Thread Andrey Repin
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

Re: Treating Junctions consistently, as "normal dirs" as w/linux "bind"-type mount

2017-03-09 Thread L A Walsh
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

Re: Treating Junctions consistently, as "normal dirs" as w/linux "bind"-type mount

2017-03-09 Thread Corinna Vinschen
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

Re: Treating Junctions consistently, as "normal dirs" as w/linux "bind"-type mount

2017-03-09 Thread 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 as regular directories. Only direct

Re: Treating Junctions consistently, as "normal dirs" as w/linux "bind"-type mount

2017-03-09 Thread Andrey Repin
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.