delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi | search |
X-Recipient: | archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com |
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: | No, hits=-6.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,TW_RW,TW_WX,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD |
X-Spam-Check-By: | sourceware.org |
Message-ID: | <4BC32FAF.5010900@redhat.com> |
Date: | Mon, 12 Apr 2010 08:35:27 -0600 |
From: | Eric Blake <eblake AT redhat DOT com> |
User-Agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100330 Fedora/3.0.4-1.fc12 Lightning/1.0b1 Thunderbird/3.0.4 |
MIME-Version: | 1.0 |
To: | cygwin AT cygwin DOT com, paul DOT bibbings AT gmail DOT com |
Subject: | Re: link (corutils) 8.4-2: doesn't link |
References: | <87mxx8zric DOT fsf AT gmail DOT com> |
In-Reply-To: | <87mxx8zric.fsf@gmail.com> |
X-IsSubscribed: | yes |
Mailing-List: | contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm |
List-Id: | <cygwin.cygwin.com> |
List-Subscribe: | <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com> |
List-Archive: | <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/> |
List-Post: | <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com> |
List-Help: | <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs> |
Sender: | cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com |
Mail-Followup-To: | cygwin AT cygwin DOT com |
Delivered-To: | mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com |
--------------enigEE415B0F068BC7145FCFED54 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 04/12/2010 08:15 AM, Paul Bibbings wrote: > 14:57:37 Paul Bibbings AT JIJOU > /cygdrive/d/Downloads/link_test $link zoo.exe zoo_link >=20 > 14:57:54 Paul Bibbings AT JIJOU > /cygdrive/d/Downloads/link_test $ls -l > total 128 > -rwxr-xr-x+ 2 Paul Bibbings None 65024 Apr 12 14:57 zoo.exe > -rwxr-xr-x+ 2 Paul Bibbings None 65024 Apr 12 14:57 zoo_link.exe Umm, that decisively shows that 'link' created a hard link, working as designed. zoo.exe and zoo_link.exe both have a link count of 2, compared to the typical link count of 1, so they are one and the same inode. >=20 > Can I ask first of all: does link itself use ln and should I be testing > this? link(1) and ln(1) both call the link(2) syscall (well, ln does that if you didn't request symlinks). Maybe your confusion stems from wanting a symlink instead of a hard link? In which case, ln(1) is the only way to get symlinks; link(1) can _only_ create hard links. --=20 Eric Blake eblake AT redhat DOT com +1-801-349-2682 Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org --------------enigEE415B0F068BC7145FCFED54 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Public key at home.comcast.net/~ericblake/eblake.gpg Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEUEARECAAYFAkvDL7EACgkQ84KuGfSFAYDZMwCWOMyxAxk2q8n+uo62iqLN8q0Z EgCgnAe/tOCqCRZyEd01s3FSTVblboM= =gZ5f -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enigEE415B0F068BC7145FCFED54--
webmaster | delorie software privacy |
Copyright © 2019 by DJ Delorie | Updated Jul 2019 |