Create Soft and Hard Symbolic Links in Windows  

I think you might be misunderstanding what I want, plus I don't really understand what you are saying.

mklink symlink sourcefile

as I understand it, does create a file-symlink called 'symlink', so I don't get what you mean.

Also,

mklink -D symlinkdir sourcedir

creates a dir symlink.

What I want to do is create file-symlinks in an existing other directory, to have the same name as the source files, analogously to

copy sourcefile targetdir

Is that what you are understanding me to mean? Because I do not understand your reply.

Note that I am not expecting mklink to do that, since it apparently doesn't. But is there another way, other than a FOR loop?

--peter

Thanks. Actually it would be sufficient if I could create such shortcuts rather than symlinks, but from a command line, since I need to do it in a bat file. As far as I can tell, there is no way to do that, either. Or is there?

BTW, thanks for the quick responses.

--peter

Thanks, but most of my powershell attempts have led to powerful frustration; seems I never have the right version nor the right package.

I did, however, write a bat script which does the job, but there really should be a way to do it more or less atomically.

The author of linkshellextension has just said he would add the feature to his ln.exe, in the case of symlinks that I was interested in.

In case someone finds this thread after he has done so, wanting to do the same thing, that stuff can be found at Link Shell Extension .



--peter

> "when you open a soft link to a folder, you will be redirected to the folder where the files are stored."
> "A hard link makes it appear as though the file or folder actually exists at the location of the symbolic link"

In what way would appearance differ in those two cases?

>"That can make hard symbolic links more useful"
How so?

>"create a symbolic link (soft or hard) at C:\Program Files"
Even if type does not matter in that example, surely there must be situations in which one type is is preferrable; and I very much want to know the practical criteria for chosing a type.

thename said:

> "when you open a soft link to a folder, you will be redirected to the folder where the files are stored."
> "A hard link makes it appear as though the file or folder actually exists at the location of the symbolic link"

In what way would appearance differ in those two cases?

>"That can make hard symbolic links more useful"
How so?

>"create a symbolic link (soft or hard) at C:\Program Files"
Even if type does not matter in that example, surely there must be situations in which one type is is preferrable; and I very much want to know the practical criteria for chosing a type.

Shawn's wording is a bit confusing in that section.

Here is the difference:

A hard link is just another name for the same file. If you delete the original filename, the hardlink will still get you to the same unaltered file.

A symbolic link tells the file system to go look in a different place for the file. If you delete the original filename, the file is gone, and the symbolic link will point to something that no longer exists.

apb said:

Shawn's wording is a bit confusing in that section.

Here is the difference:

A hard link is just another name for the same file. If you delete the original filename, the hardlink will still get you to the same unaltered file.

A symbolic link tells the file system to go look in a different place for the file. If you delete the original filename, the file is gone, and the symbolic link will point to something that no longer exists.

One thing to bear in mind when dealing with the command line or using a batchfile, the del command on a junction deletes the contents of the junction's target folder. To remove only the junction, be sure to use the rd command instead.

apb said:

A hard link is just another name for the same file. If you delete the original filename, the hardlink will still get you to the same unaltered file.

A symbolic link tells the file system to go look in a different place for the file. If you delete the original filename, the file is gone, and the symbolic link will point to something that no longer exists.

Thank you, a good distinction, I'm sure. However, I do not understand the deletion of a name.

- - - Updated - - -

hdmi said:

del command on a junction deletes the contents of the junction's target folder. To remove only the junction, be sure to use the rd

Excellent caveat.
With regard to types of links: In my C: partition, reported by dir * /AL /s, there are dozens of junctions,
and two symlinkD. No hard links.