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>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;  protocol="application/pgp-signature";  boundary="------------enigEE415B0F068BC7145FCFED54"
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--