On 2021-01-09 18:21:45 [+0200], Lasse Collin wrote: > > Ignore hard link count on input. > > I'm fine with the patch since the suggested behavior makes sense to me > too. There's always a risk that some specific use case can break due to > this change but I guess that is acceptably low risk. > > I wonder if it were more logical if --keep also allowed processing of > files with setuid, setgid, or sticky bit set. The same reasoning > applies to all these cases, I suppose, and they are all within the same > if-block in the code so it would still be a single-line change. > > What about symlinks or files that aren't regular files (like block > devices)? I guess requiring --force for non-regular files makes sense > still but perhaps symlinks that point to regular files are OK to > process with --keep. > > Any thoughts on this patch?
Yes, I think it makes sense. Following the symlink makes sense but removing the symlink is different from removing a file and since it is not removed it could be ignored. Sebastian
