On 02/24/2012 12:11 PM, Pádraig Brady wrote:
> > > + if (relative && !symbolic_link)
> > > + {
> > > + error (EXIT_FAILURE, 0,
> > > + _("cannot do --relative without --symbolic"));
> > > + }
>
> >
> > Why restrict this to symlinks - it could also be useful for
> > hardlinks, right?
>
> Well hardlinks reference inodes and so are independent
> of any naming, whether relative or absolute etc.
Correct, but I think the whole point about --relative is this:
without that, the user has to think about how to get from
the link target to the link, while with --relative, [s]he
has to think from PWD to both names, i.e. one can use e.g.
bash-completion to get both path names.
And this would also be nice for hardlinks.
Have a nice day,
Berny
