[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: symlink weirdness
From: |
Barry Margolin |
Subject: |
Re: symlink weirdness |
Date: |
Mon, 13 Sep 2004 23:45:25 -0400 |
User-agent: |
MT-NewsWatcher/3.4 (PPC Mac OS X) |
In article <db3559c4.0409131611.28861482@posting.google.com>,
rdnews@dahlsys.com (Roger Dahl) wrote:
> If your current directory is A and you want to create a relative
> symlink to a file in directory B in directory C, you need to type the
> path as it would look from C, not from A.
>
> Though I understand that this makes 'ln' very simple (it just copies
> the argument into the link file), it doesn't make sense from a users
> perspective. When I'm in A, I can 'cp' from B to C without figuring
> out what the path to C will look like from B. 'cp -s' is even worse --
> it can only make links in the current directory.
BTW, why are you asking about this in GNU newsgroups? This behavior is
in the Unix and Linux kernel (it's the symlink() system call), not the
GNU utilities. And I expect it's required by POSIX, so it would not be
appropriate for the ln utility to do something different.
--
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
- Re: symlink weirdness, (continued)
- Re: symlink weirdness, Barry Margolin, 2004/09/13
- Re: symlink weirdness, Sam Holden, 2004/09/13
- Re: symlink weirdness, Roger Dahl, 2004/09/14
- Re: symlink weirdness, Stefan Monnier, 2004/09/14
- Re: symlink weirdness, Roger Dahl, 2004/09/15
- Re: symlink weirdness, Stefan Monnier, 2004/09/15
- Re: symlink weirdness, Roger Dahl, 2004/09/16
- Re: symlink weirdness, Paul Jarc, 2004/09/16
- Re: symlink weirdness, Barry Margolin, 2004/09/18
Re: symlink weirdness,
Barry Margolin <=
Re: symlink weirdness, Tim Smith, 2004/09/14