Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 14:02:03 +0400 (MSD) From: "Eugene L. Vorokov" <vel@bugz.infotecs.ru> To: ertr1013@student.uu.se (Erik Trulsson) Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Re: Why is csh tcsh? This can be a bad thing... Message-ID: <200108241002.f7OA23m01583@bugz.infotecs.ru> In-Reply-To: <20010824115818.A6710@student.uu.se> from "Erik Trulsson" at Aug 24, 2001 11:58:18 AM
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On Fri, Aug 24, 2001 at 01:45:48PM +0400, Eugene L. Vorokov wrote: > > > > It's kinda late in the process to be complaining about this, but I just noticed this myself... > > > > Why not just symlink csh to tcsh then ? > > Because csh is hardlinked to tcsh instead. Oh well, I missed that. But I think symlink would do just the same, but it would be more obvious for user that csh is now the same thing as tcsh. Is there any situation where symlink would not do the job but hardlink would ? Regards, Eugene To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200108241002.f7OA23m01583>