Bill Studenmund wrote:

> On Sun, 16 Apr 2000, matthew green 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?
> 
> Why do we want it?

Does an immutable symlink make sense?

Simon.