X-Recipient: archive-cygwin@delorie.com X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org In-Reply-To: <4B97684F.7000703@towo.net> References: <20100304094847.GZ17293@calimero.vinschen.de> <20100304114902.GC7980@calimero.vinschen.de> <4B9696F3.70004@cygwin.com> <4A05CDB7-413E-4920-989F-E9470BCBE658@von-campe.com> <4B97684F.7000703@towo.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753.1) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: Cc: cygwin@cygwin.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Alfred von Campe Subject: Re: Strange symlink behaviour Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 07:59:55 -0500 To: Thomas Wolff X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@cygwin.com On Mar 10, 2010, at 4:37, Thomas Wolff wrote: > Actually, if the file system does not support hard links, a tar > file that contains them doesn't properly extract at all, it will > rather report errors for those files. > (At least that's what it does on a network filesystem whose mount > doesn't support hard links either.) > So it's a problem to use hard links in tar for general use. That's good to know. In my limited experiments on the NAS box we use (which speaks both CIFS and NFS), extracting a tar file containing hard links from Windows via the Cygwin tar, appears to "do the right thing". It even appears that it's an actual hard link when viewed from NFS (both files have the same inode). Alfred -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple