Re: Unionfs

[Wolfgang Jaehrling]

On Sun, Dec 08, 2002 at 09:04:11AM +0100, Moritz Schulte wrote:
> > Also, I find it a bit unfortunate that a simple `ls' triggers this
> > already:
> >
> > wj@hurd:~/unionfs$ settrans -ac foo unionfs .. /
> > wj@hurd:~/unionfs$ ls foo/unionfs/
> > ls: foo/unionfs/foo: Too many levels of symbolic links
> 
> Of course; that is exactly the problem we were speaking about on IRC.
> If you would be allowed to lookup foo/unionfs/foo, this would lead to
> endless recursion - wouldn't be so nice for e.g. the locatedb-find
> process.

Still, I find it a bit unfortunate that a simple `ls' triggers this
already. ;-)

How about giving it the appearance of an empty directory instead?
Then dired mode and `ls -l' etc. would not fail when looking at the
parent directory of the node in question; I don't think it would cause
any harm.

Cheers,
GNU/Wolfgang