From: sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu (Charles Sandmann) Message-Id: <10212121858.AA26132@clio.rice.edu> Subject: Re: DJGPP 2.04 status page updates: more to-dos, priorities To: eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il (Eli Zaretskii) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 12:58:37 -0600 (CST) Cc: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com In-Reply-To: from "Eli Zaretskii" at Dec 12, 2002 07:26:27 PM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL2] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com Precedence: bulk > The current format in DJGPP was selected to not cause any expensive I/O > operations in standard functions like `stat' and the likes. That's why > the symlink file has a fixed length. Is the new Cygwin format compatible > with that, i.e. does it create fixed-size files? I don't know. A typical .lnk is not, but there are fields that can be added (such as comment) which would make it fixed size. There are also problems with .lnk files under SFN systems since you can't have multiple periods (we might recognize it as a .lnk without the name due to size and magic value, but Windows would not). Deciding to add .lnk to the name or not based on the setting of LFN would be more complex. Windows .lnk format is more complex to process. I've played with it in the past. You can write .lnk files very small without all the extra fields microsoft typically adds. And each time you click on one it updates fields inside the .lnk (access time, etc). The advantage is, of course, that Windows treats them as symlinks also.