Subject: Re: renaming /boot to /boot_
To: Greywolf <email@example.com>
From: Simon Burge <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 09/30/1999 15:43:03
> Hey, can I ask another Real Stoopid [TM] question?
> What's the point of symlinking bootblocks? They're gonna have to
> be on the same device anyway in order for the symlink to resolve
> [i.e. the bootblocks know jack about where other devices will be
> mounted!], why not just hard-link if you have to link at all?
No one is arguing with you! The libsa (stand-alone bootblock type)
code has support for following symlinks on ffs filesystems, but there's
a define to not compile in this support to save space.
The current bootblocks for (most of?) the architectures that use the
libsa code don't compile in the subdirectory stuff - this automatically
gets rid of the symlink code as well. If we want to add subdirectory
support (by removing -DLIBSA_FS_SINGLECOMPONENT), we need to explicitly
disable symlink support...