home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- From: Donn Terry <uunet!hpfcrn.fc.hp.com!donn>
-
- >From: srg@quick.COM (Spencer Garrett)
- >I don't know if this is the proper forum in which to discuss this issue,
- >but it seems to me that we're about to codify a poor implementation of
- >the concept of symbolic links. IMHO symbolic links shouldn't have
- >a format code at all, since they shouldn't be inodes. They make
- >infinitely more sense when treated as directory artifacts - i.e. a
- >directory entry either points to an inode or it supplies some more
- >path information to be used in resolving the request. This eliminates
- >all the silliness about what permission bits on symbolic link inodes
- >mean, for instance. Here's the directory structure I use in my own OS.
-
- The current draft (in the POSIX mailing that's in the mail now..., I
- hope) was explicitly modified to allow an implementation where symbolic
- links are directory objects, not inodes. (The concept of time of link
- is pretty meaningless anyway!)
-
- It will have to be reviewed to see if it's right.
-
- Donn Terry
-
- Volume-Number: Volume 19, Number 30
-
-