[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Niels M�ller) writes: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes: > > > Normally (without special flags) you should always follow the > > translator, and you would never see the => syntax. > > What is "special"? ls normally follows symlinks silently, but ls -F > and ls -l shows some information about symlinks. Are these particular > flags special enough?
I think our rule is that ls should continue to use exactly the stat calls it does now, which follow translators, but sometimes don't follow symlinks. Note the difference between O_NOLINK and O_NOTRANS in this regard. The former (but not the latter) is supposed to be used by lstat. > I think it will be easier to understand the system if symlinks and > translators are treated in the same way by programs walking the file > system, in the absence of any hurd-specific flags. Well, the reason against this is that translators are really just mount points, and existing ls does *not* treat them differently. > By the way, what's a good "ls -F"-indicator character for translators? > `&' (process), `!' (action), or `?' (oddity)? Perhaps active and > passive translators should be displayed differently. Hrm, don't know. :) _______________________________________________ Help-hurd mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-hurd
