[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: symlink weirdness
From: |
Roger Dahl |
Subject: |
Re: symlink weirdness |
Date: |
14 Sep 2004 08:53:56 -0700 |
Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote in message
news:<barmar-538A36.21574513092004@comcast.dca.giganews.com>...
> Actually, the reason for this is that relative symlinks are interpreted
> relative to the directory they appear in. This allows you to mount the
> filesystem anywhere in the hierarchy, and relative symlinks will work
> properly. Also, you can archive a directory containing relative
> symlinks using something like tar, and the symlinks will be correct when
> you restore it.
Hi Barry,
I understand the concept of relative vs absolute links. As I
mentioned, I'm looking to create relative links. I would just like to
be able to specify them in a different way...
Roger
- symlink weirdness, Roger Dahl, 2004/09/13
- Re: symlink weirdness, Barry Margolin, 2004/09/13
- Re: symlink weirdness,
Roger Dahl <=
- Re: symlink weirdness, Sam Holden, 2004/09/13
- Re: symlink weirdness, Roger Dahl, 2004/09/14
- Re: symlink weirdness, Stefan Monnier, 2004/09/14
- Re: symlink weirdness, Roger Dahl, 2004/09/15
- Re: symlink weirdness, Stefan Monnier, 2004/09/15
- Re: symlink weirdness, Roger Dahl, 2004/09/16
- Re: symlink weirdness, Barry Margolin, 2004/09/18
Re: symlink weirdness, Barry Margolin, 2004/09/13
Re: symlink weirdness, Tim Smith, 2004/09/14