In article <9769.955859126@eterna.com.au>,
matthew green <mrg@eterna.com.au> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> i've implemented an lchflags(2) (that does not follow symlinks, and
> can thus operate on symlinks).  it appears to work just fine.  however
> the chflags(1) man page claims that symlinks don't have flags?
> 
> chflags(1) itself will need some updating, but does anyone object to
> this new system call?


Add it; the comment refers to the 4.4BSD temporary attempt to hide the
fact that symlinks are stored in inodes.

christos