Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 23:12:34 -0700 From: Bakul Shah <bakul@bitblocks.com> To: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG, Matt Dillon <dillon@earth.backplane.com> Subject: Re: Ok, try this patch. (was Re: symlink(2) [Was: Re: tcsh.cat]) Message-ID: <200106190612.CAA16188@glatton.cnchost.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 19 Jun 2001 15:56:01 %2B1000." <Pine.BSF.4.21.0106191536440.14564-100000@besplex.bde.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > So it seems to me the _use_ of a "" target symlink > > (in all but the final path component position) is exactly > > equivalent to the use of a "/" target symlink. When used in > > the final path component position, you get either the symlink > > or ENOENT. The POSIX excerpt Garrett quoted seems to match > > this. > > No, because the relevant slash is in the pathname resulting from > simple replacement of the full path prefix (<prefix>/<symlink>) > with the symlink's contents. Quoting Garrett's quote: IMHO the key point is the *resulting* remaining pathname after substitution. Normally one would simply prepend the <symlink> contents before the <suffix>, see if the resulting pathname starts with a '/', if so start the search at root else start the search at the parent of symlink. In any case any leading slashes are removed. In other words the <suffix> bits are not kept separately from <symlink> bits. This is a simpler implementation and seems to match what posix says. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200106190612.CAA16188>