On Sat, Nov 05, 2005 at 12:10:25PM -0700, Bob Proulx wrote:
> Thanks for the report. But what you are seeing is not a bug.
Thanks for your long explanation. I accept that the behaviour of 'ln -s' is as
desired and I have misunderstood something.
However, I think that the info documentation should explicitly mention what
name
does the created symbolic link refers to.
The improved examples you mentioned suggest this but it would be better
to also state it.
E.g. in the options section one can write something like:
`--symbolic'
Make symbolic links instead of hard links. The symbolic links refer to
the
exact name that appeared on the command line as TARGETs. This option
merely
produces an error message on systems that do not support symbolic
links.
> This new behavior that you are desiring has been suggested before
> and if someone were motivated to write the code, tests and docs for it
> then I am confident that it would be accepted in the upstream project.
I guess the main difficulty is what name should the link refer to.
I do not see any natural solution.
I am sorry for the trouble I have caused.
Best wishes,
Gabor
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
