On 06/18/2014 05:07 PM, Matt Burgess wrote: > On 18/06/2014 16:05, Kazer Powa wrote: >> Yep, I've read that, and I still believe it is wrong. It's not about the >> ls command, it's about the path of the target. Of course the command in >> the section 4.2 is right, as well as this one, but this one's target >> path is wrong. > > Please don't top-post. > > The command is *not* wrong. The symlink's target is relative to its > source, not to its current working directory. > > Regards, > > Matt.
I did some tests and, as you said, the command was right, but I agree with the user that opened that ticket: "It is strange to me that ln follows relativity differently than other unix commands. " Thank you for your time.
-- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
