Mmmm..hasn't this discussion on symbolic links gone on just a bit too
long. I suggest someone who is disatisfied with the description
of them send in a PR, as for their representation in ls listings
then that is in line with UNIX systems in general.
Their is no reason why people cannot write a wra
On 2002-10-09 22:09, Peter Leftwich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 8 Oct 2002, Gary W. Swearingen wrote:
> > Confusion comes about mostly because the "ls" command shows an arrow
> > pointing from the target (AKA destination) to the source, backwards from
> > what most people would expect when thi
On 8 Oct 2002, Gary W. Swearingen wrote:
> PL> The manpage is super unclear about sourcefile and targetfile, I have
> PL> said this for years. Think of this paragraph: [snip]
> PL> ... as this instead `ln -s actualfile linkfile`
> That's not the best way to think of it, since "actualfile" need no
Gary W. Swearingen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Oliver Fromme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Gary W. Swearingen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > ln [-fhinsv] linked_filename [link_filename]
> > > ln [-fhinsv] linked_filename ... dir_filename
> > > link existing_filename alternate_filename
Adam Weinberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> (10.09.2002 @ 0209 PST): Oliver Fromme said, in 1.2K: <<
> > Gary W. Swearingen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > ln [-fhinsv] linked_filename [link_filename]
> > > ln [-fhinsv] linked_filename ... dir_filename
> > > link existing_filename altern
Oliver Fromme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Gary W. Swearingen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > ln [-fhinsv] linked_filename [link_filename]
> > ln [-fhinsv] linked_filename ... dir_filename
> > link existing_filename alternate_filename
> >
> > This is cleaner, but I think "filename" should b
>> (10.09.2002 @ 0209 PST): Oliver Fromme said, in 1.2K: <<
> Gary W. Swearingen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > ln [-fhinsv] linked_filename [link_filename]
> > ln [-fhinsv] linked_filename ... dir_filename
> > link existing_filename alternate_filename
"linked" should be avoided. this is the e
Gary W. Swearingen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ln [-fhinsv] linked_filename [link_filename]
> ln [-fhinsv] linked_filename ... dir_filename
> link existing_filename alternate_filename
>
> This is cleaner, but I think "filename" should be standard in filenames.
But it is not a filename.
>
Giorgos Keramidas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > FWIW, the source doesn't have to be a file at all, in the
> > case of symbolic links. I think the correct term is "link
> > target" in that case -- that's how it is called in the
> > standards (POSIX, SUSvX etc.).
It looks like the manual has go
On 2002-10-09 00:14, Oliver Fromme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Gary W. Swearingen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > How about this: ln [-fhinsv] source_filename [link_filename]
>
> FWIW, the source doesn't have to be a file at all, in the
> case of symbolic links. I think the correct term
>> (10.08.2002 @ 1514 PST): Oliver Fromme said, in 1.2K: <<
>ln [-fhinv] existing_filename [another_filename]
>ln -s [-fhinv] symlink_target [symlink_name]
>
> That would be completely clear, IMO. Although maybe a bit
> too verbose.
too verbose? i disagree.
> (OK, in the case of symlin
Gary W. Swearingen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> How about this: ln [-fhinsv] source_filename [link_filename]
FWIW, the source doesn't have to be a file at all, in the
case of symbolic links. I think the correct term is "link
target" in that case -- that's how it is called in the
standards
>> (10.08.2002 @ 1151 PST): Gary W. Swearingen said, in 1.4K: <<
> How about this: ln [-fhinsv] source_filename [link_filename]
>
> I just TRY to remember them as being bassackwards from the more natural
> order of "ls": link -> source
i still stand by my method: the file you want the command
Peter Leftwich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The manpage is super unclear about sourcefile and targetfile, I have said
> this for years. Think of this paragraph:
>
> SYNOPSIS
> ln [-fhinsv] source_file [target_file]
...
> ... as this instead `ln -s actualfile linkfile`
That's not the best
>> (10.07.2002 @ 2216 PST): Peter Leftwich said, in 1.5K: <<
> On Mon, 7 Oct 2002, SweeTLeaF wrote:
> > I am in the /usr/root dir
> > ln -s desktop /root/Desktop/tmp
>
> You should be using `ln -s /root/Desktop/tmp /usr/root/desktop`
no, he shouldn't be. when he looks at /root/Desktop/tmp he
On Mon, 7 Oct 2002, SweeTLeaF wrote:
> I am in the /usr/root dir
> ln -s desktop /root/Desktop/tmp
You should be using `ln -s /root/Desktop/tmp /usr/root/desktop`
The manpage is super unclear about sourcefile and targetfile, I have said
this for years. Think of this paragraph:
SYNOPSIS
16 matches
Mail list logo
