Steven Dovich wrote:

>          The real story is that the POSIX draft does what has not been
>done previously, and clearly specifies how a symlink gets interpreted by all
>interfaces that take pathnames.

But that is precisely the point! It then goes on to change the way it
works! What is wrong with the historical interpretation of symlinks? Why
change? As has been elaborated on in detail here, the new semantics won't
make anyone's life happier. Following terminal links by syscalls will make
all kinds of users and sysadmins very unhappy. "How come /etc/passwd is now
owned by Joe User?"

Please, Steve, if you have any influence on that POSIX subcommittee, let
them seriously consider standardising existing practice. It may be a weird
practice, but as has been shown in current-users, it is no weirder than the
alternatives.
I'd far prefer chown et al explicitly left undefined, then to open up this
can of worms.

                                                -- Bert Driehuis

------
Bert Driehuis                 God, grant me the serenity to accept the things
driehuis@utrecht.knoware.nl   I can't change, courage to change the things I
                              can, and the wisdom to know the difference.