Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 18:56:32 +0300 (IDT)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: Laurynas Biveinis <lauras AT softhome DOT net>,
        DJGPP Workers <djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com>
Subject: Re: symlink() & is_v2_prog() question
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.91.990830094050.3558A-100000@is>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.990830185416.10193A-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk


On Mon, 30 Aug 1999, I wrote:

> Of course, if `symlink' is going to support any type of file, then
> this should be reconsidered and maybe changed.  The decision depends,
> among other factors, on whether the symlink for a DJGPP executable
> will still be created like it is done today (i.e., by stubediting an
> empty stub), or perhaps it will use the general mechanism like the
> other files.

Regarding the above: I would think that links to executables should use 
the same mechanism as to other files.  One reason is because the stub 
simulation requires that the symlink and its target be in the same 
directory.  It also doesn't support long file names.  I think this will 
eventually lead to some nasty side effects.