On 8/20/21 5:20 AM, Krzysztof Żelechowski wrote:
gzip -k b && gzip -cd b.gz >b
which would trash the hard-linked file as well.
That would replace the content of the file b with the content of the file b.
How bad can that be? ;-)
It could be a problem as-is if some other file reads 'a' in the middle
of the process. And the problem would be more serious in other examples,
such as:
echo hello >a
ln a b
gzip -k b && gzip -cd b.gz >>b
This would trash 'a' if gzip -k succeeded. (Same with 'ln -s'.)
> Of course one can use -f to go ahead and compress anyway.
That would silently replace an existing target, which is bad.
Sure. The only question here is what things "gzip -k" should be able to
do, without the things being considered "bad".
Perhaps if you gave us the surrounding context; that might help explain
why it would be useful to change the behavior of gzip -k on links. Bug
report 50097 seems to start up in the middle of a conversation that I'm
not privy to.
