This topic is not appropriate for this alias. Please take it elsewhere.
-John
Joerg Schilling wrote:
> 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
>
