On 7 March 2018 at 12:34, Robert P. J. Day <rpjday@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, 7 Mar 2018, Ahmad Samir wrote: > >> On 6 March 2018 at 14:34, Robert P. J. Day <rpjday@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > >> > i'm curious about RH packaging policy that dictates that some >> > command variants are packaged for fedora to install with symlinks >> > and others with hardlinks. >> > >> > trivial example in /usr/bin on my fedora 27 system: >> > >> > -rwsr-xr-x. 1 root root 52984 Aug 2 2017 at >> > lrwxrwxrwx. 1 root root 2 Aug 2 2017 atq -> at >> > lrwxrwxrwx. 1 root root 2 Aug 2 2017 atrm -> at >> > >> > so even though all of those "commands" are in the very same directory, >> > atq and atrm are supported via symlinks, not hardlinks. >> >> I am not an expert, some commands act differently when called >> differently; so executing /bin/atq would make the 'at' binary behave >> differently than when it's executed as plain 'at'. >> >> The same logic applies to bash, /bin/sh is a symlink to /bin/bash, >> but when bash is invoked as sh it acts differently than when invoked >> as 'bash'. Have a look at the bash manual page for more info. > > yes, i'm aware of this, and i'm pretty sure whether a hardlink or > symlink is used would make no difference. > > rday You are right, I missed the bit about hardlinks. Sorry for the noise. -- Ahmad Samir _______________________________________________ users mailing list -- users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to users-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
