Steven Bellovin <smb%cs.columbia.edu@localhost> writes: > Consider the following two sequences: > > a) Create a file A > b) Create a symlink X->A > c) Create a hard link Y=X > d) Unlink a > e) Create a directory A > > or > > a) Create a symlink X-A', where A' doesn't exist > b) Create a hard link Y=X > c) Create a directory A Did you try this? I just did (netbsd-5, ufs2), and the attempt is to link Y with the target of X, which fails. > What should happen? And why should A being a directory initially > change the semantics of X and Y, compared with the desired result of > the first two scenarios? (As best I can tell, the first scenario does > work on NetBSD and the second doesn't, at least when using ln(1).) I think the big issue is that NetBSD creates hard links to the symlink's target, and Linux creates hard links to the symlink itself. It's hard to understand why you'd want a hardlink to a symlink (rather than a second symlink), as symlinks are small and more importantly seem to have create and delete operations but not modify operations. Going back to lisp, what does it mean for two immutable objects to be the same object vs having the same value? Is there some way in Linux to change the symlink target and have both (hardlinked) source names point to the new target?
Description: PGP signature