X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org AB4F83851ABA DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cygwin.com; s=default; t=1689976465; bh=IN5gDt6xd5P+7KzCUwtcIQSnggfzk6u1C0NJVOrKSIw=; h=Date:Subject:To:References:In-Reply-To:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe:From:Reply-To:Cc: From; b=TriNANA8Ymnup8/x1L2rB9oMhmiCzljybPXHWHUPPJgkotTle4YdJipXoVNEiCkQD pjIuh2NjqjIByTMHdeApAz5qu8E6rvEWEqFHP5/+IUEDsE1gOKDc9ih9OWcRH1Gkod x6RIz5S5cnAq/uDqTXepiqRXnTGHQm1hZRGBWSkE= X-Original-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org C09043855587 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2023 14:54:08 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/102.0 Thunderbird/102.13.0 Subject: Re: Most git executables are hard links to git.exe? Content-Language: en-US To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com References: In-Reply-To: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, NICE_REPLY_A, SPF_HELO_PASS, SPF_PASS, TXREP, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 List-Id: General Cygwin discussions and problem reports List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , From: Jim Garrison via Cygwin Reply-To: jhg AT acm DOT org Cc: Jim Garrison Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Sender: "Cygwin" On 07/21/23 14:52, Brian Inglis wrote: > On 2023-07-21 14:59, Jim Garrison via Cygwin wrote: >> Git comes with over 100 executables, mostly in /usr/libexec/git-core, >> that all appear to be *hard* links to /bin/git, in both Cygwin and >> Windows. The Windows fsutil command shows they're all hard linked: [snip] >> I'm curious to know if there's a specific reason for this implementation >> that would make it the choice over symbolic links. > > For the same reason you are complaining about backups not taking > hardlinks into account: to avoid distributing 400MB instead of 3MB. > > Cygwin backup utilities should be able to deal with these e.g. rsync -H, > --hard-links, although it appears xcopy and robocopy may not under > Windows 10; don't know about other utilities or Windows 11. But why not use symbolic links to accomplish the same thing? -- Jim Garrison jhg AT acm DOT org -- Problem reports: https://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: https://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: https://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: https://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple