Hard/Symbolic Links [was: Re: r7347]

Randy McMurchy randy at linuxfromscratch.org
Fri Apr 11 09:50:58 PDT 2008

Ag. D. Hatzimanikas wrote these words on 04/11/08 11:39 CST:

> Now tell me.
> What would you do in that occasion?
> http://linuxfromscratch.org/pipermail/blfs-support/2008-April/064365.html
> Hard link of soft link?

Symbolic link, without hesitation. First of all, that is what the LFS
book says to do. :-)

But more importantly, /lib could be on a different partition than /usr,
so it *must* be a symbolic link in that case.

> What if the Original Poster had the / root partition in a different
> file system?

Answered earlier. See above.

> I don't know, maybe is aware of the hard link behavior, I
> just say that without thinking I would do symlink because that is the
> standard thing to do, and I bet you would do the same. 

Agreed, 100%. As Richard mentioned, I haven't had a need for a hard
link since I can remember.

And, if red was located in /usr/bin (which in my opinion it *should*
be as there really should never be a need for a restricted ed while
in single-user mode), then we *would* need to use your patch. But
because both live in /bin as currently stands in BLFS, I don't see
the need to do a patch (sed).


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 i686]
11:45:00 up 54 days, 2:33, 1 user, load average: 0.00, 0.04, 0.10

More information about the blfs-book mailing list