This is the mail archive of the cygwin mailing list for the Cygwin project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Possible Documentation Inconsistency


On 3/11/2010 5:20 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Mar 10 22:17, Buchbinder, Barry (NIH/NIAID) [E] wrote:
http://cygwin.com/cygwin-ug-net/using-effectively.html#using-shortcuts

By default, Cygwin uses a mechanism that creates symbolic links that are
compatible with standard Microsoft .lnk files.

http://cygwin.com/cygwin-ug-net/using-cygwinenv.html#cygwinenv-implemented-options

(no)winsymlinks ... Defaults to not set since plain file symlinks are
faster to write and faster to read.

Thanks for the heads-up. Somehow the text doesn't fit well anymore. Is that better?

   Another problem area is between Unix-style links, which link one file
   to another, and Microsoft .lnk files, which provide a shortcut to a
   file.  They seem similar at first glance but, in reality, are fairly
   different.  By default, Cygwin does not create symlinks as .lnk files,
   but there's an option to do that, see<xref: CYGWIN environment variable>
   These symlink .lnk files are compatible with Windows-created .lnk files,
   but they are still different.  They do not include much of the information
   that is available in a standard Microsoft shortcut, such as the working
   directory, an icon, etc.  The cygutils package includes a mkshortcut
   utility for creating standard native Microsoft .lnk files.

   But here's the problem.  If Cygwin handled these native shortcuts like any
   other symlink, [...]

I'm open for suggestions to phrase that more eloquently.

Looks good to me.


--
Larry Hall                              http://www.rfk.com
RFK Partners, Inc.                      (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office
216 Dalton Rd.                          (508) 893-9889 - FAX
Holliston, MA 01746

_____________________________________________________________________

A: Yes.
> Q: Are you sure?
>> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
>>> Q: Why is top posting annoying in email?

--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]