Hard/Symbolic Links [was: Re: r7347]
randy at linuxfromscratch.org
Fri Apr 11 05:41:25 PDT 2008
Christian Wurst wrote these words on 04/11/08 06:50 CST:
> I'd say making the book more consistent (in itself, but also with LFS)
> is a reason too. If we do symlinks here (vim for instance) and
> hardlinks there (ed), without a clear reason why, it might confuse
> readers. If we differ from a standard way of doing things there should
> be a reason - and it should be explained in the book why it is done
> different in this case.
> If my explanation about the differences of hard and symlinks is
> correct, I can really live with both. But we really should have a
> standard way to do it.
Thanks for the input Christian! I'm also hoping Ag will comment,
especially about "unnecessary" hard links.
As far as your comment about "standard way to do it", I want the
standard way to be: leave it as the package author wrote it, unless
there is a problem with how he did it, or we can make it significantly
better by changing it.
Changing a hard link to a soft link doesn't fit in either of those
rmlscsi: [bogomips 1003.22] [GNU ld version 2.16.1] [gcc (GCC) 4.0.3]
[GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.6] [Linux 126.96.36.199 i686]
07:38:01 up 53 days, 22:26, 1 user, load average: 0.10, 0.09, 0.03
More information about the blfs-book