home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.os.linux
- Path: sparky!uunet!mcsun!news.funet.fi!hydra!klaava!torvalds
- From: torvalds@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Linus Torvalds)
- Subject: Re: PATCH: (0.98.6) allow root to link/unlink directories
- Message-ID: <1992Dec17.123007.24132@klaava.Helsinki.FI>
- Organization: University of Helsinki
- References: <1992Dec14.224916.21859@klaava.Helsinki.FI> <irc.724492966@ultima> <cfA0XjK00WDJ4O01Fk@andrew.cmu.edu>
- Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 12:30:07 GMT
- Lines: 24
-
- In article <cfA0XjK00WDJ4O01Fk@andrew.cmu.edu> Frank T Lofaro <fl0p+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
- >
- > But if you delete where a symlink points to, you have a worthless,
- >dangling symlink (*). A hard link would allow you to delete the source
- >from its original location if no longer needed there, but leave the copy
- >in your account untouched.
-
- Yes, but with a hard link, the parent directories get *very* easily
- messed up, and you can be left totally stranded if you don't understand
- the filesystem very well. Even a guru can get confused if the link
- counts etc seem off due to bad entries for '.' or '..'. It's not
- something you want to do.
-
- >* Does Linux still have the dangling symlink bug. Like, if you do ln -s
- >some_file_name_that_does_not_exist foo, does a cat foo say "Too many
- >levels of symbolic links", instead of "No such file or directory" or
- >some other appropriate message? Just thought I'd mention it, in case the
- >bug is still lurking out there.
-
- No the bug has been corrected since 0.98 or so: it was just due to an
- incorrect error return, not and fundamental kernel wrong-doings. I
- cleaned up the error-handling in 0.97pl6 or something.
-
- Linus
-