Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!hao!boulder!sunybcs!rutgers!princeton!phoenix!vic From: vic@phoenix.PRINCETON.EDU (V Duchouni) Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards Subject: Re: Symbolic links Message-ID: <670@phoenix.PRINCETON.EDU> Date: Fri, 4-Sep-87 01:34:00 EDT Article-I.D.: phoenix.670 Posted: Fri Sep 4 01:34:00 1987 Date-Received: Sat, 5-Sep-87 16:44:41 EDT References: <3711@elecvax.eecs.unsw.oz> Reply-To: vic@phoenix.UUCP (V Duchouni) Organization: Princeton Univ. Computing and Information Technology Lines: 19 In article <3711@elecvax.eecs.unsw.oz> neilb@elecvax.eecs.unsw.oz (Neil F. Brown) writes: >It occurs to me that there is a very simple way to avoid the >problems with symbolic links. It is to not have symbolic links >to directories. >I realise this has already been thought of, but I feel it was >discarded too quickly. > NO !!! Not too quickly at all. Symbolic links to directories are essential. Consider two or more hosts sharing the /usr directory. How would they maintain separate spool directories, mail alias databases etc without symbolic links. Symbolic links do magic, each host, interprets the pathname of the link relative to its own fs tree e.g. /usr/spool->/private/usr/spool will be a different place on each machine if /private is unshared. This mechanism has saved heaps of duplication of static system files on the local SUNS, no version of mount which refers to a physical rather than a symbolic address could even come close. V.Duchovni