On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 1:30 PM, Nellis, Kenneth (Conduent) < kenneth.nel...@conduent.com> wrote:
> > What is the transition plan? For example, I have scripts that create hard > links, and I want them to continue to create hard links. What can I do in > advance to modify my scripts so that when the patch is installed, they > will not break? > > I too am curious/concerned about this; I have a number of scripts deployed random places, and when/if the systems involved get updated to newer coreutils (if ever) I no longer can continue to use the same scripts ; I further must branch my scripts for any new Coreutils systems far in advance of having to maintain the old ones, but it becomes a large hassle of unknown breakage dates on systems I don't even maintain anymore. I for one do not appreciate this fundamental change to 'ln'. > I see that -h will be offered, but it isn't valid now, so I can't prepare. > It will be too late after I install the patch. It seems a transition > version that gives us a chance to prepare before pulling the plug is > warranted. > > I would like to see a transition version that recognizes an environment > variable that specifies the default link type, and that the code > recognizes both -h and -s. Then I can prepare and when the patch hits, > nothing breaks. Also, the transition version should not recognize ANY > defaults (-h, -s, or environment variable) so that problem areas are > identified. > indeed, a brand new version of 'ln' that "does nothing" and breaks totally, vs "does the wrong thing" and 'may silently work or fail depending', is about the only way to force a change like this. Most things of mine 'ln -sf' today ; but some simply 'ln' and these are the problematic ones. Thanks, Mike
