>>>>> On Fri, 12 May 2000 21:56:30 +0100, Graham Barr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> On Fri, May 12, 2000 at 02:31:28PM +0200, Andreas Koenig wrote:
>> > >>>>> On Thu, 11 May 2000 09:19:40 -0400, Chris Nandor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>said:
>> >
>> > > So will the old ANDK directory eventually go away, or wil it just forever
>> > > remain a symlink?
>> >
>> > I don't know.
>>
>> I think that it would be best if the symlink remained. That way, anybody
>> who's ever made a link to that URL will be able to keep it. I don't see any
>> negative effects of this.
> If the symlink is to remain what is the point of all of this ?
> If it is to get them all in the same place why not just create
> a symlink the other way (eg G/GB/GBARR -> ../../GBARR) and
> save the extra rsync traffic ?
It's a mixture of several reasons.
Doing it this way opens at least the option to deprecate the symlinks.
And by deprecating them we can some day really get rid of them. And
anyway, if we make the canonical name the same as the real filename we
avoid confusion for future implementors. And there is the effect of
generating a two class community: I have been asked already if I could
"pretty please" assign such a "real" CPAN ID to a new user instead of
a second class one:-/
--
andreas
