Andrew Gabriel <Andrew.Gabriel at Sun.COM> wrote:
> Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > Casper.Dik at sun.com wrote:
> >
> >> Symlinks didn't exist until SVR4 got them from BSD so I'm not sure what
> >> the point is (symlinks take a lot more diskspace)
> >
> > As I did already mention, this is definitely wrong.
> >
> > SVR3 did support symlinks, it did not have lstat()....
>
> SVR3.2 didn't support symlinks, but many distributions of it (such as
> Interactive UNIX and SCO) later added their own support for symlinks on
> top. It was pretty essential if you wanted to be able to be an NFS
> server, which they did.
Do you have an "AT&T" Source to check? I did not see a single SVr3 installation
without symlinks. They have however been unusable because there only was a
symlink(1) command and the symlink(2) syscall instead of "ln -s" and with ls(1)
you could only guess that there have been symlinks because if the missing
lstat(2).
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)
schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog:
http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
