On Monday, April 29, 2002, at 03:38 , Chris Devers wrote:
> Interesting, but not *quite* what I get: > > % echo "test" > foo > % /sw/bin/ln foo foo-hl > % /sw/bin/ln -s foo foo-sl > % /sw/bin/ls -s -1 foo* > 4 foo > 4 foo-hl > 0 foo-sl > % /bin/ls -s -1 foo* > 8 foo > 8 foo-hl > 8 foo-sl > % > > So the built in /bin/ls sees no block-size difference, while /sw/bin/ls > reports equal size for the hard links & zero for the symlink. (Repeating > these steps with /bin/ln instead of /sw/bin/ln made no difference, so I > haven't included those results here.) > > Are you really getting zero size files for hard links? > No, you're completely right. Can't reconstruct what gave me this impression _ probably because the list ended with zssh and ztelnet, which on my ls -l appeared as clearly hard linked. But then it means A. Strange indeed has a problem _ at least for those 2 files ... Jean-Francois _______________________________________________ Fink-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-users
