Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!bellcore!uunet!rbj
From: rbj@uunet.UU.NET (Root Boy Jim)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.internals
Subject: Re: Should find traverse symbolic links?
Message-ID: <125284@uunet.UU.NET>
Date: 11 Mar 91 22:47:26 GMT
References: <1991Mar3.003300.23940@NCoast.ORG> <124715@uunet.UU.NET> <1991Mar9.213928.10943@NCoast.ORG>
Organization: UUNET Communications Services, Falls Church, VA
Lines: 40

In article <1991Mar9.213928.10943@NCoast.ORG> allbery@ncoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery KB8JRR) writes:
>As quoted from <124715@uunet.UU.NET> by rbj@uunet.UU.NET (Root Boy Jim):
>+---------------
>| 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.

No you are if you continue to use those weird systems.

However one wants to use them, the default should be safely.
I agree that an override switch should be provided.

The standard has been set (for all those who cannot see what should
be painfully obvious). BSD find does not follow them. Neither
does tar, nor does rm -f. 

>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.

Yes, symlinks have warts, but so do hard links.
	
>Unfortunately, I don't have
>the faintest idea what to replace them with.

Nor do I.

>++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


-- 
		[rbj@uunet 1] stty sane
		unknown mode: sane