Steve Youngs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> |--==> "KG" == Kai Gro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> KG> Steve Youngs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>(make-symbolic-link "/[method/user@host]/path/to/filename"
> >>"/path/to/symlink-name")
>
> >>And I'd be very happy with that. :-)
>
> KG> Oh, boy. So there should be a new file /path/to/symlink-name on
> KG> the remote host, which is a symlink pointing to /path/to/filename
> KG> on the same host?
>
> Yes, precisely!
>
> KG> This is just weird.
>
> It's not weird at all.
If you want to create a new file on the remote host, why does not the
name of that file indicate that it's on the remote host? That's what
I find weird.
I think it's okay if
(make-symbolic-link "/path/to/filename"
"/[user@host]/path/to/symlink-name")
Creates a new file /path/to/symlink-name on the remote host which is
a symlink. But I don't understand why
(make-symbolic-link "/[user@host]/path/to/filename"
"/path/to/symlink-name")
should create a file on the remote host -- the filename
/path/to/symlink-name is clearly a local file name!
> KG> Why don't you agree on putting the user/host spec on the source
> KG> rather than the target?
>
> Because it makes more sense and is consistent with
> make-symbolic-link's arguments of 'FILENAME LINKNAME'. Actually, just
> thinking about it some more, it would probably be better to do...
>
> (make-symbolic-link "/[method/user@host]/path/to/filename"
> "/[method/user@host]/path/to/symlink-name")
>
> Providing that the Trampish parts of the names get stripped when
> writing it to disc.
I have changed Tramp such that the above behaves as you want. So
this is the part we agree on.
I guess more discussion is still needed for the case where the
user/host is not given in both files.
kai
--
A large number of young women don't trust men with beards. (BFBS Radio)
_______________________________________________
Tramp-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.freesoftware.fsf.org/mailman/listinfo/tramp-devel
