X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.8 required=5.0 	tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED,FREEMAIL_FROM,NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED,SPF_HELO_PASS,TW_RW,TW_WX,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD,T_TO_NO_BRKTS_FREEMAIL
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
From: Paul Bibbings <paul DOT bibbings AT gmail DOT com>
Subject: Re: link (corutils) 8.4-2: doesn't link
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2010 15:45:19 +0100
Lines: 35
Message-ID: <87iq7wzq4g.fsf@gmail.com>
References: <87mxx8zric DOT fsf AT gmail DOT com> <4BC32FAF DOT 5010900 AT redhat DOT com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
User-Agent: Gnus/5.110011 (No Gnus v0.11) Emacs/23.1 (windows-nt)
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id: <cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com

Eric Blake <eblake AT redhat DOT com> writes:

> On 04/12/2010 08:15 AM, Paul Bibbings wrote:
>>    14:57:37 Paul Bibbings AT JIJOU
>>    /cygdrive/d/Downloads/link_test $link zoo.exe zoo_link
>> 
>>    14:57:54 Paul Bibbings AT JIJOU
>>    /cygdrive/d/Downloads/link_test $ls -l
>>    total 128
>>    -rwxr-xr-x+ 2 Paul Bibbings None 65024 Apr 12 14:57 zoo.exe
>>    -rwxr-xr-x+ 2 Paul Bibbings None 65024 Apr 12 14:57 zoo_link.exe
>
> Umm, that decisively shows that 'link' created a hard link, working as
> designed.  zoo.exe and zoo_link.exe both have a link count of 2,
> compared to the typical link count of 1, so they are one and the same inode.
>
>> 
>> Can I ask first of all: does link itself use ln and should I be testing
>> this?
>
> link(1) and ln(1) both call the link(2) syscall (well, ln does that if
> you didn't request symlinks).  Maybe your confusion stems from wanting a
> symlink instead of a hard link?  In which case, ln(1) is the only way to
> get symlinks; link(1) can _only_ create hard links.

Okay.  That makes sense.  It must be either that I recollect wrongly
that I had used link (instead of ln), or that I had used it in a context
where a hard link sufficed for whatever it was that I was trying to do
at the time.

Thank you for the clarification.

Regards

Paul Bibbings


--
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