From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10012 invoked by alias); 1 Apr 2013 16:17:35 -0000 Mailing-List: contact cygwin-developers-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-developers-owner@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-developers@cygwin.com Received: (qmail 9963 invoked by uid 89); 1 Apr 2013 16:17:23 -0000 X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=4.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50,BOTNET,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_NO,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_YE autolearn=no version=3.3.1 Received: from vms173011pub.verizon.net (HELO vms173011pub.verizon.net) (206.46.173.11) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.84/v0.84-167-ge50287c) with ESMTP; Mon, 01 Apr 2013 16:17:21 +0000 Received: from [192.168.1.231] ([unknown] [108.20.163.251]) by vms173011.mailsrvcs.net (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 7u2-7.02 32bit (built Apr 16 2009)) with ESMTPA id <0MKL00HJX3W94G30@vms173011.mailsrvcs.net> for cygwin-developers@cygwin.com; Mon, 01 Apr 2013 11:17:01 -0500 (CDT) Message-id: <5159B2F9.7050705@rfk.com> Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2013 16:17:00 -0000 From: Larry Hall User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130307 Thunderbird/17.0.4 MIME-version: 1.0 To: cygwin-developers@cygwin.com Subject: Re: native symlink References: <20130327151656.GB5860@calimero.vinschen.de> <80C3E267-F369-4FF3-A3FD-69A997FFC33B@mac.com> <5153759A.7080307@cygwin.com> <51585C76.1080604@openafs.org> In-reply-to: <51585C76.1080604@openafs.org> Content-type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2013-04/txt/msg00003.txt.bz2 On 3/31/2013 11:55 AM, Jeffrey Altman wrote: > Larry's statement that native symlinks only work on NTFS is no longer > true. They also work on Microsoft's ReFS as well as in OpenAFS 1.7.23 > and above. True. My original statement was a bit of an overstatement. ;-) What is also true is that Cygwin-native symlinks work with Cygwin tools on both NTFS and FAT filesystems. This was an important consideration when they were originally implemented and continues to be important today. Someday, though, the benefits of this transparent handling of symlinks on FAT filesystems fade. But let me stop there as I fear I'm getting dangerously close to rehashing old topics. :-) Thanks Jeffrey for the pointer to your blog post. -- Larry