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.


Reply via email to