On 25.05.2018 20:30, Stefan Kueng wrote:
>
>
> On 25.05.2018 18:07, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
>> Stefan Küng wrote on Fri, 25 May 2018 17:37 +0200:
>>> Can anyone comment on this please?
>>
>> I'm not familiar with the Windows side of things, but I gave the
>> patch a spin.
>
> And I'm not familiar with soft/hardlinks on Linux. :)
>
>> If I do 'mv .svn x; ln -s x .svn', things seem to work. However, if the
>> target of the '.svn' symlink isn't in the same directory as the symlink,
>> 'status' just shows everything with '!' status. I didn't check, but
>> if I'd
>> done 'ln -s ../../.svn subversion/tests/.svn' and run 'status' in
>> subversion/tests/, I assume it would confuse trunk/README and
>> trunk/subversion/tests/README (due to having the same basename).
>
> ok, so this breaks on non-Windows systems.
> I'll try another patch soon.
>
> question: symlink handling in svn does not seem to actually work on
> Windows. At least the docs state that they're not handled on Windows.
> So why do we even check for 'special' nodes on a Windows build?
>
> If e.g. svn_io_check_special_path() on Windows would always return
> false and svn_io_check_path() always call svn_io_check_resolved_path()
> instead, this would work fine with the reparse points on Windows.
>
> So is there a reason why this is not done so on Windows? Is there
> maybe a reason for handling reparse points specially on Windows that I
> don't know of?
Subversion can't create symbolic links on Windows the way it can on any
normal OS, for several reasons:
* The Windows CreateSymbolicLink function needs to know in advance if
the target of a symlink (or any other kind of reparse point, really)
is a directory or not. That's a non-starter; Unix symlinks can point
to a non-existent target.
* It requires elevated permissions on most versions of Windows.
* Windows reparse points have subtly different semantics than symlinks
on Unix.
>>>> IMHO handling links/reparse-points specially is only required in very
>>>> specific situations, like adding them. In most cases, resolving the
>>>> links/reparse points is what should be done. Or am I missing something
>>>> big here?
>>
>> This is a very general statement ("most code should use stat() rather
>> than lstat()"). What specifically are you proposing to do?
>
> Seems on Linux this really needs special handling.
> But as far as I can see, on Windows this special handling actually
> breaks things.
>
> Stefan
>
Received on 2018-05-26 09:42:35 CEST