Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!gatech!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!ncoast!allbery From: allbery@NCoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery KB8JRR) Newsgroups: comp.unix.internals Subject: Re: Should find traverse symbolic links? Message-ID: <1991Mar9.213928.10943@NCoast.ORG> Date: 9 Mar 91 21:39:28 GMT References: <1991Mar3.003300.23940@NCoast.ORG> <124715@uunet.UU.NET> Reply-To: allbery@ncoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery KB8JRR) Followup-To: comp.unix.internals Organization: North Coast Public Access Un*x (ncoast) Lines: 28 As quoted from <124715@uunet.UU.NET> by rbj@uunet.UU.NET (Root Boy Jim): +--------------- | In article <1991Mar3.003300.23940@NCoast.ORG> allbery@ncoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery KB8JRR) writes: | >The Altos systems at work (aside from the 5000, which runs SCO Pseudnix and | >therefore doesn't have symlinks... d*mmit) have a "find" which understands the | >"-nosym" option. It prevents traversal of symlinks --- the opposite of what | >you're asking for. | | This is just plain wrong. Worse, it's dangerous. | What next, follow symlinks on rm -f? | | Brandon, you are a glutton for punishment. +--------------- No, Altos is. I haven't decided yet which I prefer. But 90% of my find's do want to follow the symlinks... this probably depends on how one uses them. Understand that Altos hacked symlinks in after the fact, originally intended for their WorkNet setup. But insofar as I'm concerned, symlinks are a kluge anyway: a useful kluge, but a kluge nonetheless. Unfortunately, I don't have the faintest idea what to replace them with. ++Brandon -- Me: Brandon S. Allbery Ham: KB8JRR on 40m, 10m when time Internet: allbery@NCoast.ORG permits; also 2m, 220, 440, 1200 America OnLine: KB8JRR // Delphi: ALLBERY AMPR: kb8jrr.AmPR.ORG [44.70.4.88] uunet!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!ncoast!allbery KB8JRR @ WA8BXN.OH