hi ya dan i dont use hardlinks.. ( creates portability problems )
have fun alvin -- note that x.h is dereferenced back to /home/alvin/... which i think is bad but... thats a good reason NOT to use hardlinks ( ... just me ... ) -- x.s is what i want... create it relative and keep it relative Maggie:/tmp/test# ln -s ./pinerc023592 x.s Maggie:/tmp/test# ln ./pinerc023592 x.h Maggie:/tmp/test# ls -la total 2 drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 1024 May 14 20:11 ./ drwxrwxrwt 4 root root 1024 May 14 20:08 ../ lrwxrwxrwx 2 root root 24 May 14 20:08 pinerc023592 -> /home/alvin/pinerc023592 lrwxrwxrwx 2 root root 24 May 14 20:08 x.h -> /home/alvin/pinerc023592 lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 14 May 14 20:11 x.s -> ./pinerc023592 *poof* to /tmp/test On 14 May 2001, Dan Christensen wrote: > Alvin Oga <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > i think the problem you have w/ hardlinks is more basic, > > how to create hard links or soft links... not a tar problem > > ... > > > relative links is the preferred methodology ( hard or soft ) > > and avoids the leading / and allows the portability of > > the files to be restored or shared in any level of hiercharcy > > I don't think relative links make sense for hard links. My > understanding is that in the file system, hard links are > stored by referencing the inode. It is only tar that needs > to convert this to a textual form for storage in the tar file. > > By the way, the files I had problems unpacking were standard Debian > executables in /usr/bin and /bin. So I maintain that tar can't > unpack hard links properly. Test it out yourself if you don't > believe me, Alvin! :-) > > Dan >
