On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 11:17:46AM -0400, Mouse wrote: > >> If linux_link(2) seems unreasonable, it could be lazy_link(2), > >> weak_link(2), braindead_link(2) or whatever. > > You'll also need to update every filesystem to allow this and update > > all the various fsck programs to allow filesystems to be in this > > state. > > Hardly. The most that needs to be done to "every filesystem" is to > reject these operations. The filesystem(s) that we want to support > hardlinks to symlinks can then be uptdated, one at a time, along with > their fscks.
Yeah, well, it adds up to the same thing. > > I'd disagree with this as it seems like a nonsensical thing to do. > > Why? Because symlinks are a special type of filesystem object with their own semantics and for many purposes they're often not even directly addressable. Also, from a more operational standpoint, because there's no way to update a symlink in place, so there's no difference between two symlinks and two hard links to the same symlink except confusion and the number of inodes used. FWIW, I just asked some linux guys about the linux behavior and the answer was "we sell rope". -- David A. Holland dholl...@netbsd.org
