Thanks Daniel,
P.S. WinVista finally introduced "real" symlinks. If everyone upgraded...<0002-Windows-shortcut-support.patch><0001-website- changes-switch-to-load-system-etc.patch>
Is there a good (and portable) *feature* or other mechanism to tell which version of Windows we're running on? -- Gary Warren King, metabang.com Cell: (413) 559 8738 Fax: (206) 338-4052 gwkkwg on Skype * garethsan on AIM * gwking on twitter
Gary King wrote:
Thanks Daniel,
P.S. WinVista finally introduced "real" symlinks. If everyone upgraded...<0002-Windows-shortcut-support.patch><0001-website-changes-switch-to-load-system-etc.patch>
Is there a good (and portable) *feature* or other mechanism to tell which version of Windows we're running on?
I'm not sure that this actually makes the problem go away. I know that Vista has symlinks, but have they replaced the old shortcuts, or are they just an additional feature. If the latter, we may still want to support following shortcuts. That would be especially true if making shortcuts is supported by the windows graphical shell and symlinks aren't.
best, r
Gary King wrote:
P.S. WinVista finally introduced "real" symlinks. If everyone upgraded...<0002-Windows-shortcut-support.patch><0001-website-changes-switch-to-load-system-etc.patch>
Is there a good (and portable) *feature* or other mechanism to tell which version of Windows we're running on?
Not that I know of. My impression is that one would need to check for a particular system file; most lisp implementations don't export sufficient detail. Unfortunately, I built the Vista box for my parents; so I can't readily check it anymore.
I'm not sure that this actually makes the problem go away. I know that Vista has symlinks, but have they replaced the old shortcuts, or are they just an additional feature. If the latter, we may still want to support following shortcuts. That would be especially true if making shortcuts is supported by the windows graphical shell and symlinks aren't.
Absolutely. XP and older will still be common for several years. But ASDF might explore using symlinks on newer systems.
- Daniel
P.S. I still have an XP box available for occasional testing.
dherring@tentpost.com wrote:
Gary King wrote:
P.S. WinVista finally introduced "real" symlinks. If everyone upgraded...<0002-Windows-shortcut-support.patch><0001-website-changes-switch-to-load-system-etc.patch>
Is there a good (and portable) *feature* or other mechanism to tell which version of Windows we're running on?
Not that I know of. My impression is that one would need to check for a particular system file; most lisp implementations don't export sufficient detail. Unfortunately, I built the Vista box for my parents; so I can't readily check it anymore.
I'm not sure that this actually makes the problem go away. I know that Vista has symlinks, but have they replaced the old shortcuts, or are they just an additional feature. If the latter, we may still want to support following shortcuts. That would be especially true if making shortcuts is supported by the windows graphical shell and symlinks aren't.
Absolutely. XP and older will still be common for several years. But ASDF might explore using symlinks on newer systems.
But isn't this a no-op? I.e., if these are POSIX symlinks, then shouldn't the existing ASDF stuff Just Work?
Seems to me that the only reason we need to think about this is if (1) there's something about Vista symlinks that fails with lisp stuff or (2) we thought it would let us just ignore Windows shortcuts.
I'm inclined to let (1) be a sleeping dog and lie, until a Vista user complains about it and given the prevalence of older Windows versions (esp. XP), I don't think (2) is a great strategy.
best, r
-
dherring＠tentpost.com -
Gary King -
Robert Goldman