Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 08:56:51 +0200 From: "Steve O'Hara-Smith" <steveo@eircom.net> To: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> Cc: david@catwhisker.org, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: symlink(2) [Was: Re: tcsh.cat] Message-ID: <20010616085651.29684596.steveo@eircom.net> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0106161355360.89789-100000@besplex.bde.org> References: <20010615183515.36f81380.steveo@eircom.net> <Pine.BSF.4.21.0106161355360.89789-100000@besplex.bde.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 16 Jun 2001 14:34:07 +1000 (EST)
Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> wrote:
BE> We are (or at least I am) talking about changing it to prevent links to a
BE> string that can _never_ be a valid pathname. Fortunately, in POSIX there
BE> is only one such string (the empty string).
Maybe, but it seems a harmless special case to me, and others seem to
find it useful.
BE> Here's an example of a standard utility being clueless about symlinks to
BE> nothing:
BE>
BE> $ ln -s '' foo
BE> $ cp foo bar
BE> cp: foo is a directory (not copied)
That *is* broken, it should make bar a symlink to '' IMHO.
BE> cp is also broken for symlinks to valid pathnames for nonexistent files;
BE>
BE> $ rm -f foo
BE> $ ln -s /nonesuch foo
BE> $ cp foo bar
BE>
BE> This duplicates foo as a symlink, but should just fail.
This is correct behaviour IMHO - why on earth should it fail. If I
copy a directory containing symlinks I don't want them do vanish just because
the target is unavailable.
--
Directable Mirrors - A Better Way To Focus The Sun
http://www.best.com/~sohara
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?20010616085651.29684596.steveo>