Joerg Schilling <Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote: > "Alan.M.Wright" <amw at sun.com> wrote: > >> Joerg Schilling wrote: >> > "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. >> > >> >> You're trying to draw a distinction between this proposal and current >> symlink behavior but there is no distinction. To existing applications, >> these will appear like symlinks that don't resolve to an existing target. > > You did not answer my question: is it possible to "correctly" copy such an > object by using lstat(), readlink() and symlink()?
Yes. Alan
