Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 09:26:28 +0200 From: "Eli Zaretskii" Sender: halo1 AT zahav DOT net DOT il To: lauras AT softhome DOT net Message-Id: <2427-Tue15Aug2000092627+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: <39983839.E5692C3D@softhome.net> (message from Laurynas Biveinis on Mon, 14 Aug 2000 20:19:37 +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> <4331-Mon14Aug2000205622+0300-eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il> <39983839 DOT E5692C3D 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 20:19:37 +0200 > From: Laurynas Biveinis > > Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > 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). > > This is not number of symlinks to file. This is a number of how many > symlinks you can encounter when processing a path. My Posix references clearly say "maximum value of a file's link count". This is what led me to believe that LINK_MAX and _POSIX_LINK_MAX are about hard links, not symlinks. Can someone who know Unix/Posix better please tell if this is true?