Ulf-D. Ehlert skreiv: > Kolbjørn Stuestøl (Freitag, 19. Juni 2009, 17:34): > >> SOLVED >> > > No, we still have to adapt the Makefile(s) to Cygin/Windows. > Forgot it. :-[ To the work: I did the following in Cygwin to get a working copy of the image files in html/nn: 1. $ tools/make_image_links.pl -v --mode=hardlink images/C html/nn/images 2. $ tools/make_image_links.pl -v --mode=hardlink images/common html/nn/images (to get the rest of the images) The functions are copying the images directly from images/nn or from images/C if no "translated" image exists. The image files made in xml/nn are not used. (I deleted them to prove the theory. It worked.) Copied the html catalog and run it on a different computer not even in a network. All worked as on the original machine. I have not found a way to figure out whether an image file is a real file or a hardlink. They looks alike in the file browser and all other places I am able to list them. (See below). > >> Your (Ulf) suggestions works with "hardlink" and "copy"! >> > > Did it also work with "html/LL/images" being a link > to "../../xml/LL/images", or only when you linked/copied the files > directly to the html directory? > > (I can add a simple test for Cygwin using an autoconf macro and then > modify the relevant Makefile commands accordingly, but I have to know > which parts of the Makefile to change.) > I have no idea how to test for Cygwin. Assume you know a clever way :-) . > >> This resulted in html files pointing to LANG (here "nn") images >> when they exist, otherwise to C images. Just as supposed. I have >> not figured out which one of the methods is the be recommended, >> hardlink or copy. To me they seems to be equal. >> > > Using hardlinks seems to be better, since this way we won't create new > files and copy several MByes of data, instead just directory entries > are added or updated (at least, under Linux). > Don't know if hardlinks are portable, though (but it looks like > hardlinks are even more portable than symlinks), > I have found very little relevant stuff about links in Windows. The nearest I came from Microsoft is http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa365006(VS.85).aspx Seems that hard links in Windows are treated like copies instead of as links. At least before Windows Vista. Symbolic links is only available as such in Vista. Perhaps Microsoft is learning (stealing?) from Linux? . The image files are portable in the sense that they may be used on a different computer. Have not finished the "The UNIX-HATERS Handbook", so perhaps I misunderstood your questions a bit. BTW: The book learned me a lot. Not to be a Unix hater, but why I got those annoying error messages and to avoid some of them. Had a thunderstorm today. I'm not using any kind of electronics in such weather. Therefore a bit late. Kolbjoern > Bye, > Ulf > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Gimp-docs mailing list > Gimp-docs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-docs > _______________________________________________ Gimp-docs mailing list Gimp-docs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-docs
