Hard/Symbolic Links [was: Re: r7347]

Sukucorp Sukucorp 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
Manager's fault.

>
>  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
most distros.

-- 
Tushar Teredesai
 mailto:tushar at linuxfromscratch.org
 http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~tushar/



More information about the blfs-book mailing list