In article <Pine.LNX.4.64.0610250030480.2442@m2s05.vlinux.de>,
Hubert Feyrer  <hubert@feyrer.de> wrote:
>
>Linux' /proc/$$/exe is a symlink while it' a regular file on NetBSD's 
>procfs (mounted with -o linux).
>
>Linux:
>   rfhinf090% dir /proc/$$/exe
>   lrwxrwxrwx  1 feyrer bedienst 0 Oct 25 00:31 /proc/19364/exe -> /bin/tcsh
>
>NetBSD:
>   noon% dir /emul/linux/proc/$$/exe
>   -r-xr-xr-x  1 root  wheel  298032 Aug 11 02:09 /emul/linux/proc/13537/exe
>
>How hard would it be to fix our procfs to have the 'exe' entry as symlink?
>Or is there a good reason not to follow Linux (in Linux emul!) here?
>
>FWIW, this was tested with Linux rfhinf090 2.6.8-24.23-smp #1 SMP Thu Jun 
>8 13:31:34 UTC 2006 i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux and NetBSD 4.0_NETA/i386.
>
>Some background: apparently there are commercial (proprietary) 
>database/ERP systems for Linux that check for that symlink, and abort if 
>it's  not there. (I sure don't want to know the details, but fixing our 
>emulation seems worthwhile to me :-)
>
>Anyone got a patch?

What we do is actually better because if the executable is removed ours
will still work. But we could have two entries I guess for this; one
a symlink and the other the real inode.

christos