Just to tie the archive together, here is a previous discussion:
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-fileutils/2003-10/msg0.html
Paul Eggert wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Proulx) writes:
Only -s and -f are required.
Yes, but POSIX requires the GNU ln behavior that the original
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Proulx) writes:
I am not convinced POSIX says this. We would have to dig into
exactly what is meant by destination in the standard and how that
differs from or is the same as target_dir.
Here's my reasoning.
Dear friends,
I have encountered a problem using the command ln -sf to replace a symlink
to a directory by a symlink to a different directory.
Working in a heterogenous environment with GNU/Linux and HP-UX workstations
I found a different behaviour in this command's handling on the two
operating
Peter Kratzer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have encountered a problem using the command ln -sf to replace a symlink
to a directory by a symlink to a different directory.
`ln -nsf' should do what you want.
___
Bug-coreutils mailing list
Peter Kratzer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Contrary to the Unix behaviour (e.g. HP-UX) using this command on a
GNU/Linux system does not replace the link, but creates a new link in the
originally referenced directory.
Actually, HP-UX is the odd man out here. GNU ln is compatible
with Solaris
Peter Kratzer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Contrary to the Unix behaviour (e.g. HP-UX) using this command on a
GNU/Linux system does not replace the link, but creates a new link in the
originally referenced directory.
This has appeared as a portability problem a number of times in the
past. If
