On Fri, 30 Sep 2016 16:41:11 -0600 Warren Young <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sep 30, 2016, at 4:37 PM, Joe Mistachkin <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > Are having directory symlinks (on Unix) supposed to be supported? > > If not, is anybody willing to help me add support for them? > > Well, that’s a tricky one, innit? Fossil manages files, not > directories, but Fossil’s view of symlinks is file-like. So is it an > apple or an orange? _______________________________________________ > fossil-users mailing list [email protected] > http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users Hello, In UNIX, symbolic links are actually files (technically even directories are files, just of a different kind such as a socket, character device, etc.). If that symbolic link points to a directory then directory based operations would work on it. NTFS symbolic links are exactly the same as UNIX symbolic links and as such are also special files. NTFS junctions however are only for directories and cannot be used on files. So for these systems, Fossil just has to stop when it finds a symbolic link and treat it as such. The only consideration would be if Fossil were to be run on an operating system or file system which does not support symbolic links. It knows which files are symbolic links and as such it would need special handling to make sure things do not go wrong. To support these systems reliably, there would have to be a Fossil controlled filesystem using a means similar to FUSE. _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
