Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 20:56:23 +0200 From: "Eli Zaretskii" Sender: halo1 AT zahav DOT net DOT il To: lauras AT softhome DOT net Message-Id: <4331-Mon14Aug2000205622+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il> X-Mailer: Emacs 20.6 (via feedmail 8.2.emacs20_6 I) and Blat ver 1.8.5b CC: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com In-reply-to: <39982526.BD15241A@softhome.net> (message from Laurynas Biveinis on Mon, 14 Aug 2000 18:58:14 +0200) Subject: Re: change for symlinks References: <3997BA55 DOT 413E8CCD AT softhome DOT net> <2950-Mon14Aug2000192605+0300-eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il> <39982526 DOT BD15241A AT softhome DOT net> Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com Precedence: bulk > Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 18:58:14 +0200 > From: Laurynas Biveinis > > Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > Are these relevant to symlinks? I thought they are only related to > > hard links. Where does the link count come into play with symlinks? > > I'm confused. I've been using those to determine when continue solving > symlinks and when to quit. I'm afraid it is the same story as with EMLINK, > which I was using to throw on link loop. I simply don't know who is right, but somehow I don't think Unix imposes limits of the number of symlinks to a file (which is what LINK_MAX and _POISX_LINK_MAX are about). > But where should be specified maximum symlink count when resolving > path? Do you even need a maximum here? > I think some rest won't hurt after I have integrated symlinks. Yeah, right...