>> I would argue skipping hardlinks is a [mistake]. [...]
> I meant to convey that neither hard links nor symbolic links will be
> skipped.
Ah! Then we're in furious agreement, it would appear.
>> Suggestion: provide a directive (!depthlimit?) that allows setting
>> the limit.
> This is really
On Tue, Apr 06, 2021 at 06:06:18PM -0400, Mouse wrote:
> lstat()? The rest of that sentence looks to me like a better match for
> stat() rather than lstat().
You're right, I had the behavior of lstat and stat confused.
> I would argue skipping hardlinks is a msitake. If I want to share
> config
> We plan to use standard C glob() function as well as lstat() (for
> checking for regular files), so that symbolic links will work as
> well.
lstat()? The rest of that sentence looks to me like a better match for
stat() rather than lstat().
> Any non-regular files (or non-symbolic links to regu
