On Thu, 2002-01-24 at 08:32, Jesper Skov wrote: > On Fri, 2002-01-25 at 00:54, Rui Miguel Seabra wrote: > > Reverted Jesper's ln change: > > http://lists.ebbs.com.au/pipermail/ice-linux/2001-May/000289.html > > has several points about symbolic vs hard links. > > Yes, but I hardly see how any of the points pro hard links matter. > Please explain which do.
Jesper, I searched for ln and only found: ln src dst that's hard not symbolic. thus I corrected to ln -s src dst (which is soft). I think we both agree that symbolic is better for this situation, but some confusion or another was made :) because the spec only had 'ln src dst' (notoriously a -s was erased and two spaces were left). I couldn't reach bugzilla.abisource.com to check the diffs (maybe a problem with my isp or parsons), but I just made it go back to symbolic links. BTW, I think that that ln call was inherited and not written by me. Hugs, rms -- + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown + Whatever you do will be insignificant, | but it is very important that you do it -- Ghandi + So let's do it...?
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
