Date: Thu, 18 Mar 1999 11:50:06 +0200 (IST)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: "Mark E." <snowball3 AT usa DOT net>
cc: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: symlink question
In-Reply-To: <199903171807.SAA76910@out5.ibm.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.990318114931.22105C-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk


On Wed, 17 Mar 1999, Mark E. wrote:

> I was under the impression that we should either add calls to link() or 
> disallow non-existant files. Doing both seems unneccessary.

Of course.  I was just asking where in the patched code is the case of
a missing source file handled (presumably by calling `link').  Can you
point at that place?