Hard/Symbolic Links [was: Re: r7347]
sukucorp at gmail.com
Fri Apr 11 09:54:57 PDT 2008
On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 10:24 AM, Ag. D. Hatzimanikas
<a.hatzim at gmail.com> wrote:
> For example, I am totally missed the hard link to ed/red (man
> page)/executable because the format sequence I used to track the package
> missed the hard link. And one yet another reason to change the execution
> of the ln(1)command is the absence of verbosity (-v switch), which made
> me to loose the creation.
That is not a shortcoming of having hard links, it is the Package
> So lets say that you move the ed binary to /bin, because you need ed
> while booting and you have / (root) in a different file system.
> Then you will discover that red is broken.
If you had made a symlink, then red will be broken, but it it was a
hard link and you moved ed from /usr/bin to /bin (with root being a
separate file system) both ed and red would continue to function
normally. Perhaps that was the reason for upstream to use a hardlink.
I agree with Randy. We should not change with upstream commands unless
we have to. Of course if we create additional symlinks (like vi ->
vim) we should use symlink since that is the convention followed by
mailto:tushar at linuxfromscratch.org
More information about the blfs-book