Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Message-ID: <41D19E50.301@familiehaase.de>
Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2004 18:56:32 +0100
From: "Gerrit P. Haase" <gp AT familiehaase DOT de>
Organization: Esse keine toten Tiere
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; WinNT4.0; de-AT; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20040910
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Rainer Dunker <rainer DOT dunker AT web DOT de>
CC: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: gcc installation problem and solution
References: <1849635026 AT web DOT de>
In-Reply-To: <1849635026@web.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-IsSubscribed: yes

Rainer Dunker wrote:

> "Gerrit P. Haase" <gp AT familiehaase DOT de> schrieb am 28.12.04 11:40:39:
> 
>>>These are supposed to be symbolic links to the executables in the 
 >>>/usr/bin directory, but - for whatever reason - the setup program
 >>>did not install them in a way that they were used as symlinks
 >>>afterwards (for example, ar.exe is a text file with contents
>>>"!<symlink>/usr/bin/ar.exe"). So I removed them and created 
 >>>symlinks to the proper executables manually; after that, the
 >>>problem was gone.

>>This is the correct content of valid Cygwin Symlinks and for me
>>NT Explorer shows them as type "S" for symlink too.  The symlinks
>>should work fine from within any Cygwin based shell (bash, zsh, ...).
> 
> 
> I remember having seen that on W2K and maybe XP, but on my 
 > current NT4 box it's apparently different.
> This is how a properly working symlink, created with ln -s, 
 > looks like:

IIRC, calling from cmd works with all kinds of symlinks on NT4,
I only got problems one time when building a windows version of
openssl on a W2K workstation.

> As seen by 'ls -l':
> lrwxrwxrwx    1 myname     mkgroup_       15 Dec 27 16:00 ar.exe -> /usr/bin/ar.exe

ls should show the same regardless which kind of symlink is used.


> As seen by 'cmd /c dir':
> 27.12.04  16:00                    116 ar.exe.lnk
> 
> This is the hexlified contents of ar.exe.lnk:
> 00000000: 4c00 0000 0114 0200 0000 0000 c000 0000  L...............
> 00000010: 0000 0046 0c00 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000  ...F............
> 00000020: 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000  ................
> 00000030: 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0100 0000  ................
> 00000040: 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0f00 2f75  ............../u
> 00000050: 7372 2f62 696e 2f61 722e 6578 6515 0048  sr/bin/ar.exe..H
> 00000060: 3a5c 7075 625c 6379 675c 6269 6e5c 6172  :\pub\cyg\bin\ar
> 00000070: 2e65 7865                                .exe
> 
> The Windows Explorer properly handles this as 'ar.exe',
> a shortcut to H:\pub\cyg\bin\ar.exe.
> 
> I can't help it, but that's what I see. I have no idea whether this difference
> in storing symlinks is a property of different Windows or Cygwin versions -
> or whatever.

There are two kinds of symlinks, Windows style (with .lnk ending)
and pure Cygwin symlinks, binutils obviously contains Cygwin stlye
symlinks.


Gerrit
-- 
=^..^=

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