On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 10:50 AM, Ben Boeckel <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 10:07:57 -0400, Lee Winter wrote: > > That problem exists with copies, but not with links. After all, file > sharing > > is the very purpose of links. I would prefer symbolic links so that > defective > > tools cannot trash the original input files, but a read-only hard link > would > > probably suffice. > > Hard links share the same permissions, so a "read only" hard link means > *all* instances are read only. Exactly. > There's also nothing preventing tools > from writing through symlinks at all (it's how my dotfiles system > works). > Yes there is. The referred-to file can be RO, which symlink accessors cannot override. Lee Winter Nashua, New Hampshire United States of America -- -- tup-users mailing list email: [email protected] unsubscribe: [email protected] options: http://groups.google.com/group/tup-users?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "tup-users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
