>> [link(2) on a symlink] > Posix says: > http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/functions/link.html > which gives an implementation-dependent out.
I assume you're talking about the wording for directories, but that's not the issue here. The question here isn't about linking to directories; it's about linking to symlinks. That the test case given fails on NetBSD because the symlink points to a directory is a red herring; the Linux behaviour doesn't link to a directory any more than the NetBSD one does - it links to a symlink. > NetBSD appears to be compliant, and to follow the default/sane > interpretation. Actually, to me the sane interpretation would be the Linux one. Why _shouldn't_ I be able to hardlink to a symlink? (Filesystem permitting, of course, as for anything involving symlinks.) > Also, from POSIX, it seems that link on anything other than a regular > file is irregular (except a symlink, where the link is made on the > target, no different than any other operation). I read "file" in that description as meaning, basically, "filesystem object". Otherwise, there'd be no need to explicitly mention the case where path1 names a directory, because it has to "[name] an existing file". /~\ The ASCII Mouse \ / Ribbon Campaign X Against HTML [email protected] / \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B
