Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!rbj
From: rbj@uunet.UU.NET (Root Boy Jim)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.questions
Subject: Re: hard linked symlinks (yeah)
Message-ID: <126619@uunet.UU.NET>
Date: 28 Mar 91 04:14:35 GMT
References: <1991Mar24.000253.9515@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Organization: UUNET Communications Services, Falls Church, VA
Lines: 33

In article <1991Mar24.000253.9515@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> phil@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Phil Howard KA9WGN) writes:
>Does anyone see any technical problems with having a single inode for
>a symlink, linked to under several different names?

Symlinks aren't implemented that way.

>The purpose is to have ONE command (rsh) executed under a number of
>different names (various host names).  The rsh command is on a different
>filesystem than the subdirectory, so a symlink is required.

True.

>The alternative was to have separate symlinks under each name, but that
>appeared to be consuming a data block for each one to store the name
>the symlink was pointing to.  I wanted to conserve some space.

The space used is negligible.

However, could always put rsh in /usr/hosts with as many links
as you like, and put the symlink into /usr/ucb.

	rm -f /usr/hosts/*
	cd /usr/ucb
	mv rsh /usr/hosts
	ln -s  /usr/hosts/rsh .
	cd /usr/hosts
	ln rsh foo
	ln rsh bar
	...

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