"Garrett D'Amore" <gdamore at sun.com> wrote:
> > Archivers that slurp and spit the symlink contents will work
> > without mods as long as they get all of the bytes, but would
> > need more extensive modifications if our storage was in a
> > system attribute. Also, we can get the single bit we need
> > in ZFS now, and a 16K sysattr will not be supportable for a
> > few more months.
>
> I'm confused. Brian says that archivers Just Work with the current
> form, because the attributes are retained. Yet, you're saying that the
> attributes are not necessarily retained. Which is it? Right now,
> either way, you have an attribute... which I *think* means that the you
> need support (which may or may not be present) in the archivers.
If these objects will be seen as symlink file type and in case they cannot
be copied using symlink(), I expect problems.
I beleve we need to get more information in order to be able to check whether
the case makes a POSIX compliant proposal.
And BTW, I like to remind people to the "well planned" Linux implementation for
"file flags" that forces archivesrs like star to open() _all_ files in search
for file flags. If I am going to backup /dev/, I am forced to open e.g. the
"rewind" type of a tape drive entry and thus forcing the tape to rewind just for
checking for fflags.
So please give more information on how to distinguish these objects from
vanilla symlinks.
J?rg
--
EMail:joerg at schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) J?rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
js at cs.tu-berlin.de (uni)
joerg.schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog:
http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
