Re: Junctions != Symlinks; Treat Junctions as MS-FS mounts; MS-symlinks are symlinks
- Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2017 13:12:09 -0700
- From: L A Walsh <cygwin@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: Junctions != Symlinks; Treat Junctions as MS-FS mounts; MS-symlinks are symlinks
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Mar 11 15:57, L A Walsh wrote:
I'm, talking parallel features and parallel problems.
Installing products on Linux or cygwin may check for and
complain about symlinks leading to their installation directory.
The cure in both is to use bind-type mounts and
remove any symlink usage in their base path.
As I wrote (multiple times now?), we can handle dir junctions as
symlinks or as normal directories. We can not handle them as mounts or
bind mounts, unless you do this explicaitly in /etc/fstab or
To a user program, a mountvol looks like a normal directory.
When I talk about a 'bind' mount, I refer to the linux-facility
for mounting an arbitrary directory on a volume on another
directory on linux. On windows, one uses JUNCTIONs to achive
a similar effect. In both cases, they look like normal directories.
That said, why not make treating it as a normal
directory dependent on "winsoftlinks:mount" in
the 'CYGWIN' var, with 'winsoftlinks:symlink being
the default (doesn't have to be present in CYGWIN var
to get current behavior). Note, I'm using 'softlink'
as MS uses when talking about JUNCTIONS -- with the new
Vista feature being SYMLINKs.
Thinking about it, when one wants to do backups, the
env-"switch" gives the option of which behavior one gets
(if that's possible/not too hard) -- either the 'normal dir'
look or the current, symlink look.
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple