Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!zephyr.ens.tek.com!tektronix!nosun!qiclab!m2xenix!quagga!ucthpx!undeed!barrett@undeed.UUCP
From: barrett@undeed.UUCP (Alan P. Barrett)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
Subject: ln -f
Message-ID: <1056@undeed.UUCP>
Date: 25 Jul 90 11:20:57 GMT
References: <3732@auspex.auspex.com>
Sender: guest@ucthpx.uucp ()
Organization: Univ. Natal, Durban, S. Africa
Lines: 18

In article <3732@auspex.auspex.com>, guy@auspex.auspex.com (Guy Harris)
writes about 'ln -f file1 file2':

> the answer is "you can get that behavior without adding a flag to 'ln'
> - either remove the target first using a command that doesn't barf if
> it's not there, or check if it's there first and remove it if it is."

But that doesn't give the same result.  If you remove file2 first, then
there is a brief window between the 'rm' and the 'ln' during which no
file named file2 exists.  If you use a version of 'ln' that clobbers
file2 and replaces it with a link to file1 in an atomic operation, there
is no such window.  The difference might be important in some
applications.

--apb
Alan Barrett, Dept. of Electronic Eng., Univ. of Natal, Durban, South Africa
Internet: Barrett.UNDEE@f4.n494.z5.fidonet.org      UniNet-ZA: Barrett@UNDEE
Real Soon Now: Barrett@EE.UND.AC.ZA    PSI-Mail: PSI%(6550)13601353::BARRETT