Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 23:18:06 -0600 From: Warner Losh <imp@harmony.village.org> To: "Steve O'Hara-Smith" <steveo@eircom.net> Cc: David Wolfskill <david@catwhisker.org>, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: symlink(2) [Was: Re: tcsh.cat] Message-ID: <200106170518.f5H5I6V44586@harmony.village.org> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 15 Jun 2001 18:35:15 %2B0200." <20010615183515.36f81380.steveo@eircom.net> References: <20010615183515.36f81380.steveo@eircom.net> <Pine.BSF.4.21.0106152249470.84573-100000@besplex.bde.org> <200106151331.f5FDVCo94946@bunrab.catwhisker.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <20010615183515.36f81380.steveo@eircom.net> "Steve O'Hara-Smith" writes: : I would argue loud and long that changing that *would* be broken. There : is never a guarantee (or even an implication) that a symlink points to a : valid directory entry (think unmounted filesystems, NFS ...). I find it hard : to imagine why creation time should be special in that regard. And it would break /etc/malloc.conf! I'd have to agree 100% here. Warner 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?200106170518.f5H5I6V44586>