On May 18, 2010, at 9:10 AM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
> I don't use Time Machine; I don't know if this problem actually occurs. I 
> thought I remembered someone saying on the list some time ago that it did.

Our users often say things that are only partially correct ;-)

I would want to test this before saying that it was actually a problem.

>> The advantage being that a TM backup will take up a little less space (and 
>> be a little less broken when restored). The disadvantage being that it will 
>> re-expose all of the old bugs we saw in individual ports when we used 
>> symlinks.
> 
> Again, I wasn't suggesting we change MacPorts to go back to using symlinks 
> instead of hard links.

Ok, I thought you were advocating at least testing it again.

> Andrea asked a general purpose question about the difference between symlinks 
> and hard links, and your response made it sound like there was no reason to 
> ever use symlinks, that they had no advantage at all.

I was replying in the context of MacPorts image mode (since as a project, we've 
tried it before and it had problems that were fixed by switching to hard links).

> I was pointing out a case where they do, and that in fact, it's hard links, 
> not symlinks, that are the peculiar/unusual entity to me; it would never 
> occur to me to create a hard link (I would use a symlink, or if necessary a 
> Mac OS alias). Even after using MacPorts for years and experiencing firsthand 
> that its hard links do what they do just fine, hard links still feel strange 
> to me. They don't fit neatly into my view of how filesystems work which was 
> formed by years of experience on Systems 6, 7, 8, & 9.

There are a lot of things that are different in Mac OS X ;-) 

> Another problem with hard links is one that was discussed on a MacPorts list 
> not long ago, about determining how much space the MacPorts prefix takes up. 
> Both the "du" command and the Finder's Get Info window can't tell hard links 
> from real files and misreport the size of the prefix by counting the 
> hardlinked items twice. Symlinks wouldn't have this problem.

Have you verified this?

The manpage for du says: "Files having multiple hard links are counted (and 
displayed) a single time per du execution. Directories having multiple hard 
links (typically Time Machine backups) are counted a single time per du 
execution."

--
Daniel J. Luke                                                                  
 
+========================================================+                      
  
| *---------------- [email protected] ----------------* |                      
    
| *-------------- http://www.geeklair.net -------------* |                      
    
+========================================================+                      
  
|   Opinions expressed are mine and do not necessarily   |                      
    
|          reflect the opinions of my employer.          |                      
    
+========================================================+



_______________________________________________
macports-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-dev

Reply via email to