cvs commit: src/sys/kern vfs_syscalls.c

Tue Aug 16 05:45:51 PDT 2005

On 16.08.2005, at 14:24, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
The standard is clear to me: it doesn't talk about links, but symbolic
links.
No, it has been talking about symlinks explicitly before.
I don't get your point.  Could you please show me the complete section 
in the standard, so that it is clear that the standard talks about 
(hard)links between files?

Matt, could we settle this down in the follow way:
(1) Revert to the old behaviour by explicitly checking for identical
vnodes and returning success [instead of deleting old].
(2) Ask for a rational and clarification on the SUS lists.
(3) Based on the outcome decide which behaviour we want.
agree with 2+3, disagree with 1

cheers
  simon
--
Serve - BSD     +++  RENT this banner advert  +++    ASCII Ribbon   /"\
Work - Mac      +++  space for low $$$ NOW!1  +++      Campaign     \ /
Party Enjoy Relax   |   http://dragonflybsd.org      Against  HTML   \
Dude 2c 2 the max   !   http://golden-apple.biz       Mail + News   / \
Attachment:
PGP.sig
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: pgp00019.pgp
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: "Description: This is a digitally signed message part"
URL: <http://lists.dragonflybsd.org/pipermail/commits/attachments/20050816/bfb8e4f2/attachment-0022.obj>