[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: convince NTemacs it _can_ symlink
From: |
Francesco Potorti` |
Subject: |
Re: convince NTemacs it _can_ symlink |
Date: |
20 Mar 2001 10:48:15 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.0.100 |
Tom Roche:
But the point of tramp is to make the 'platform' (the local host) less
relevant (if not irrelevant). Why should it matter what Windows can or
can't do, as long as it can run a session on a remote host?
Eli Zaretskii:
I'm not against the change in principle. What I'm saying is that such
a change should consider all the possible uses of make-symbolic-link,
and address them.
That's next to say that it should never be changed :-)
Seriously, though, if programs test make-symbolic-link to check for the
ability to create symbolic links, then that's okay. Only, symbolic
links can be made on some file systems, not on others.
For example, an Emacs running on a unix-like box can make symbolic links
on unix-like file systems, cannot make them on mounted vfat filesystems,
can make them on remote ange-ftp file systems if they run on a unix-like
box, but not otherwise, so tramp's case is not really diferent from
cases we already have at hand.
The difference proposed is that no platform should ever be considered
incapable of ever making symbolic links, as we can alwys work with
remote files, and that's correct in my opinion.
remote vs local symlinking, Tom_Roche, 2001/03/20