On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 1:39 PM, Paul Eggert
<address@hidden> wrote:
On 01/06/11 10:06, Michael Lawrence wrote:
> The last example I provided has no hard links.
No, actually, it has hard link. In the typical case (which
is what you had), a regular file has one hard link to it.
Less commonly, regular files can have two or more (or zero!)
hard links.
I'm sorry, but where is the hard link here?
$ ls -l foo bar
lrwxrwxrwx 1 larman larman 3 Jan 4 15:06 bar -> foo
-rw-r--r-- 1 larman larman 0 Jan 4 15:06 foo
There are no hard links to foo anywhere. Shouldn't 'bar' be replaced by the regular file 'foo'?
> Are you saying that tar now behaves the same,
> regardless of whether there is a hard link to foo?
More accurately, I'm saying that tar now behaves the same,
regardless of the number of hard links to foo.
> So dereferencing a symlink will always produce a hard link in the archive?
No, dereferencing a symlink will always produce whatever would have
been produced had the symlink been replaced by whatever it points to.
Typically this will not be a hard link in the archive.