Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!cica!iuvax!purdue!krk
From: krk@cs.purdue.EDU (Kevin Kuehl)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.sgi
Subject: Re: SGI symlink bug?
Message-ID: <10835@medusa.cs.purdue.edu>
Date: 14 Jun 90 19:28:25 GMT
References: <9006140634.aa20043@WOLF.BRL.MIL> <62256@sgi.sgi.com>
Reply-To: krk@cs.purdue.edu (Kevin Kuehl)
Organization: Computing About Physical Objects
Lines: 16

In article <62256@sgi.sgi.com> vjs@rhyolite.wpd.sgi.com (Vernon Schryver) writes:
>I think the reason our `ln -s for bar` kills the target is because `ln foo
>bar` and `mv foo bar` are always effective in the SVR3 world.  It seems to
>me that `ln` and `ln -s` should be as identical as possible, except in the
>nature of the link they make.  It would be bad if `ln foo bar` would
>succeed where `ln -s foo bar` would fail.

I agree with Vernon.  Although I think `ln -s for bar' should not
write over bar (I grew up in a BSD world), all of the SVR3 machines I
tried blew `bar' away.  Since more of the world seems to be going SVR3
or SVR4 everyday, I would rather IRIX was consistent with them.

Just my opinion,
Kevin
krk@cs.purdue.edu
..!{decwrl,gatech,ucbvax}!purdue!krk