Message-ID:	<39A4D6AC.439FD2A2@softhome.net>
Date:	Thu, 24 Aug 2000 10:02:52 +0200
From:	Laurynas Biveinis <lauras AT softhome DOT net>
X-Mailer:	Mozilla 4.74 [en] (Win98; U)
X-Accept-Language:	lt,en
MIME-Version:	1.0
To:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
CC:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: Symlinks are done!
References:	<39A2E301 DOT 29AD624C AT softhome DOT net> <2110-Wed23Aug2000142755+0300-eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il> <39A3D5DF DOT F9F3B78F AT softhome DOT net> <1438-Wed23Aug2000173005+0300-eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il> <39A43717 DOT 9EF83306 AT softhome DOT net> <2593-Thu24Aug2000085932+0300-eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com

Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > What's worse, does the same apply to readlink()? If yes,
> > I'm in trouble
> 
> No, I think you are off the hook here.  

[...]

> You *do* resolve the symlinks in all the leading directories inside
> `readlink', do you?

I'm afraid I don't. 

Misunderstandment. My question is, should readlink() resolve all leading
directories to symlink? The beginning of your reply says I shouldn't,
the end say I must.

Laurynas

- Raw text -