RE: [MiNT] MiNTLib 0.52.3b

["Julian Reschke" <reschke@muenster.de>]

> From: owner-mint@fishpool.com [mailto:owner-mint@fishpool.com]On Behalf
> Of Jo-Even.Skarstein@gjensidige.no
> Sent: Friday, August 06, 1999 4:06 PM
> To: mint@fishpool.com
> Subject: RE: [MiNT] MiNTLib 0.52.3b
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From:	Julian Reschke [SMTP:reschke@muenster.de]
> > Sent:	Friday, August 06, 1999 1:27 PM
> > To:	Jo-Even.Skarstein@gjensidige.no; mint@fishpool.com
> > Subject:	RE: [MiNT] MiNTLib 0.52.3b
> >
> > > Normally yes. I don't see a problem in moving the mountpoints
> around, as
> > > potential problems with programs that makes assumptions about
> names can
> > > easily be circumvented with a symlink.
> >
> > As I said, I don't like it, because existing code might fail
> just because
> > people forget the symlinks. And I haven't been convinced why it is a
> > problem
> > to keep them accessible in U: if you allow people to hide the entries.
> >
> Frank just said that a filesystem could only be mounted on one point, if
> you're right and it can be mounted on / as well then obviously this is the
> best solution.
>
> > But then I would point out, that it *is* guaranteed that
> <driveletter>: is
> > also available under u:\<driveletter>.
> >
> No. If this was the case then REN shouldn't work on u:\<driveletter>...

Hmm, does it????