"Alan.M.Wright" <amw at sun.com> wrote:
> Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > "Garrett D'Amore" <gdamore at sun.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>> Archivers that slurp and spit the symlink contents will work
> >>> without mods as long as they get all of the bytes, but would
> >>> need more extensive modifications if our storage was in a
> >>> system attribute. Also, we can get the single bit we need
> >>> in ZFS now, and a 16K sysattr will not be supportable for a
> >>> few more months.
> >>>
> >> I'm confused. Brian says that archivers Just Work with the current
> >> form, because the attributes are retained. Yet, you're saying that the
> >> attributes are not necessarily retained. Which is it? Right now,
> >> either way, you have an attribute... which I *think* means that the you
> >> need support (which may or may not be present) in the archivers.
> >>
> >
> > If these objects will be seen as symlink file type and in case they cannot
> > be copied using symlink(), I expect problems.
> >
>
> You're trying to draw a distinction between this proposal and current
> symlink behavior but there is no distinction. To existing applications,
> these will appear like symlinks that don't resolve to an existing target.
You did not answer my question: is it possible to "correctly" copy such an
object by using lstat(), readlink() and symlink()?
J?rg
--
EMail:joerg at schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) J?rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
js at cs.tu-berlin.de (uni)
joerg.schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog:
http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
