Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 12:22:11 +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: <20010616122211.5aadca50.steveo@eircom.net> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0106161704180.90711-100000@besplex.bde.org> References: <20010616085651.29684596.steveo@eircom.net> <Pine.BSF.4.21.0106161704180.90711-100000@besplex.bde.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 16 Jun 2001 17:27:00 +1000 (EST)
Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> wrote:
BE> > This is correct behaviour IMHO - why on earth should it fail. If I
BE> > copy a directory containing symlinks I don't want them do vanish just because
BE> > the target is unavailable.
BE>
BE> Because cp copies file contents, not file nodes (unless the -R flag is
BE> specified). This is clarified in current POSIX drafts. gnu cp gets
BE> this right.
*WHAT*, let me get this straight POSIX drafts now suggest that cp *should*
turn a symlink into a file ? I truly dread to think how much that would break.
Please tell me I have the wrong end of the stick here, failing that someone
please tell me that FreeBSD will not follow this madness.
Hang on, the target of a symlink *is* the content of the symlink not the
content of the file that may or may not be at the target. At least it always used
to be that way.
--
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?20010616122211.5aadca50.steveo>