Re: carrying links too far? (was Re: A bold idea (Re: Carrying Attributes too Far))

2003-12-07 Thread David Masover
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Quoting David Masover <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: [...] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] The problem here is that if the link itself is on a different filesystem than the actual data, and the original filesystem gets nuke

Re: carrying links too far? (was Re: A bold idea (Re: Carrying Attributes too Far))

2003-12-07 Thread lrc1
Quoting David Masover <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: [...] > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] > > > The problem here is that if the link itself is on a different filesystem > than the actual data, and the original filesystem gets nuked, what do I > do about the link? Traditionally, in order to delete a

Re: carrying links too far? (was Re: A bold idea (Re: Carrying Attributes too Far))

2003-12-06 Thread Hubert Chan
> "David" == David Masover <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: [...] David> I guess the main problem I have with this is that it only works David> when we're talking about all the filesystems on the local David> machine, and then only so far. It kind of falls apart with David> removable filesystems

carrying links too far? (was Re: A bold idea (Re: Carrying Attributes too Far))

2003-12-06 Thread David Masover
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... The solution I suggest is to throw out the "one volume, one tree" requirement. The volume's tree then becomes a forest, with every file with no parent in the volume being the root of a tree. (Of course, if you also have mu