On Fri 29 Jul 2011 at 12:12:22 -0400, Mouse wrote: > (a) You're forgetting that symlinks have other attributes than the > link-to string. The most obvious is mode bits (which have no effect > unless you mount -o symperm, but (a1) that can be done and (a2) they > can be queried with lstat(2) even if the filesystem doesn't use them), > but there are others, such as owner, or even inumber.
I seem to remember that once upon a time, the idea for symlinks was that they were magic in some way, and would not have mode bits, owner/group, etc. Not having a link count would fit with that. Not that I agree with it, because the implementation has always been different and makes sense in its own right (if not more). So I vote for allowing hard links to symlinks. > (c) I've long thought there should be a way to update a symlink > in-place. Yes! -Olaf. -- ___ Olaf 'Rhialto' Seibert -- There's no point being grown-up if you \X/ rhialto/at/xs4all.nl -- can't be childish sometimes. -The 4th Doctor
