On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 1:53 PM, Michael Lawrence <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 1:39 PM, Paul Eggert <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 01/06/11 10:06, Michael Lawrence wrote: >> > The last example I provided has no hard links. >> >> No, actually, it has hard link. In the typical case (which >> is what you had), a regular file has one hard link to it. >> Less commonly, regular files can have two or more (or zero!) >> hard links. >> >> > I'm sorry, but where is the hard link here? > > > $ ls -l foo bar > lrwxrwxrwx 1 larman larman 3 Jan 4 15:06 bar -> foo > -rw-r--r-- 1 larman larman 0 Jan 4 15:06 foo > > There are no hard links to foo anywhere. Shouldn't 'bar' be replaced by the > regular file 'foo'? > > Ok, I've read up on hard links and now understand what you mean. It's too bad there isn't an option to preserve the old behavior, which was practically useful even if inconsistent. > > Are you saying that tar now behaves the same, >> > regardless of whether there is a hard link to foo? >> >> More accurately, I'm saying that tar now behaves the same, >> regardless of the number of hard links to foo. >> >> > So dereferencing a symlink will always produce a hard link in the >> archive? >> >> No, dereferencing a symlink will always produce whatever would have >> been produced had the symlink been replaced by whatever it points to. >> Typically this will not be a hard link in the archive. >> > >
