Re: improvement for 'ln' to add the '-m' switch

[aotto]

Hi,

thanks for your answer.

I understand your concern because from a technical point of view a "link" and 
"mount" is something total different
*but* from an end-user point of view the end-user want to have the "srcDir" mapped (I use 
"mapped" because I want *not*
use the term "link" or "mount") into the "tgtDir" because the end-user 
*require* this.

for my special case the "ln -s .." is even don't work with git and so I was 
left scan the internet for such a simple task.

the classic "mount" feature does even *not* fit because, as you mentioned also, 
the mount does *not* survive a reboot.

I came up with the "ln -m ..." purpose because this is the end-user front-end for 
"mapping" a directory/file into an other place.
I understand that this is *not* easy because to survive a reboot without "spam" the "/etc/fstab" definitely require a new 
technology.

mfg

 aotto

On 09.02.24 09:10, Bernhard Voelker wrote:
> [+coreutils ML]
>
> On 2/8/24 17:43, aotto wrote:
> > Hi, I write to you because of a suggestion from the "https://serverfault.com/"; 
> Q&A side
>
> you sent this to my personal email, so you're lucky this didn't land in spam.
> Hence I'm hereby forwarding to the coreutils mailing list.
>
> > subtract: add a "-m" switch to "ln" to support "mount -bind srcDir tgtDir"
> >
> > As reference please read:
> >
> > → 
> https://serverfault.com/questions/1153146/improvement-add-new-switch-to-ln-called-m-to-link-a-directory-as-mount
> >
> > As original reference please read:
> >
> > → 
> https://stackoverflow.com/questions/77954023/git-check-in-a-file-in-a-symlink-directory-fails/77960139#77960139
> >
> >
> > mfg
> >
> >    aotto
>
> ln(1) is the userland tool for the link/linkat system calls for hard links
> and for the symlink/synlinkat system calls for symbolic aka soft links.
> Both hard and soft links are persisted in the file system.
>
> mount(1)-ing is a completely different matter, because it tells the kernel
> to well, mount(2), one file system (or part of it) on another place, and
> this is gone when the system reboots.
>
> Therefore, I don't see any common point in this, and therefore adding such
> a functionality to ln(1) is the wrong thing to do.
>
> Have a nice day,
> Berny