On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 4:24 AM L A Walsh <coreut...@tlinx.org> wrote:
> In the case of creating a link to a directory there is > no choice in creating a "working solution". If you want a link > there, it HAS to be a symlink. That the user would bother to > use the 'ln' (link) command in the first place is a sufficiently > convincing "argument" that they really DID want a link there. > That they didn't explicitly specify the type should additionally > be taken that they didn't care enough to specify the type -- only > that the link be created. > > I hope that clarifies that I'm not attempting to always > find some "automatic action", but saw that in this case, it > wouldn't be hard to figure out what was wanted and that doing > so wouldn't be hard to undo if it was not. > > > I wager that some people *aren't* aware that you cannot hardlink a directory, and instead of writing hundreds of NEW bug reports "linking broken" "why can't I link a directory" leaving 'ln' as it has been since the dawn of time is the better option. You don't think this will happen? I assure you it will. Look at the YEARS of new users being introduced, as their distributions finally 'stabilize' newer coreutils, to the new "Quoted Filenames" in 'ls' . So many people have been totally confused, angry, and rather taken aback that such an old utility did something different. Even when it could be argued(and I said exactly this when I saw the new feature) "Hey, thats pretty cool, i can cut and paste with a mouse now and it won't require manual editing later" and many people have made this argument; many other people have made the argument of "if its not in an interactive terminal, NOTHING CHANGED" because so many thought that "well crap I can't rely on any scripts to work anymore" ... Let us all learn from history, on this same maillist, of when and when not to change the default workings of a 40 year old tool. Perhaps, there are better things to do with the time than argue a point that will cause NUMEROUS people grief in the future. Mike
