Date: Tue, 21 Mar 1995 13:06:45 +0300 From: "Andrey A. Chernov, Black Mage" <ache@astral.msk.su> To: davidg@Root.COM, "Justin T. Gibbs" <gibbs@estienne.CS.Berkeley.EDU> Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org, Steven Wallace <swallace@ece.uci.edu> Subject: Re: sym links Message-ID: <WRrKgRl4l2@astral.msk.su> In-Reply-To: <199503210923.BAA00144@corbin.Root.COM>; from David Greenman at Tue, 21 Mar 1995 01:23:28 -0800 References: <199503210923.BAA00144@corbin.Root.COM>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <199503210923.BAA00144@corbin.Root.COM> David Greenman
writes:
> Well, that's how POSIX would have it...but in FFS they are stored in the
>inode if short and in a regular disk block if long. They're only made to
POSIX says a little about simlinks, they tends to ignore them when possible
and this intention cause such situation, I think.
In any case POSIX is _standard_ commitee (I mean they don't discover
completely new things) and NO so-called POSIX-symlinks
exists in the world when this draft was written, so it is obviously
misinterpretation.
>appear like they have no inode associated with them. I wouldn't object if we
>went back to the old way of doing this - with symlinks having an inode. The
>problem of a regular user not being able to delete a symlink he created in
>/tmp is one of the many problems with the way we have it now.
You point to serious problem, even for it alone is worse to revert
to previous behaviour.
I vote YES for restoring canonical thing, so many problems with new symlinks,
better to return to standard BSD way.
Let's start voting?
--
Andrey A. Chernov : And I rest so composedly, /Now, in my bed,
ache@astral.msk.su : That any beholder /Might fancy me dead -
FidoNet: 2:5020/230.3 : Might start at beholding me, /Thinking me dead.
RELCOM Team,FreeBSD Team : E.A.Poe From "For Annie" 1849
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?WRrKgRl4l2>