The -f option to ln is not portable. Nico On Wed, Dec 13, 2000 at 01:32:59PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Wed, 13 Dec 2000, Andrew Morgan wrote: > > > David Lee wrote: > > > Hence my suggestion of "-f", which seems widely available, and doesn't > > > adversely affect the use to which we are putting it (although it may be > > > possible to dream up pathological cases if someone has gone in behind the > > > back of "make" with malice aforethought). > > > But your patch says: > > > ! if [ ! -r include/security ]; then ln -sf . > > > "-r or -f" Which is it? > > -L?:) > > >From test(1) on Linux (sh-utils-1.16): > > -e file > True if file exists > -f file > True if file exists and is a regular file. > ... > -L file > True if file exists and is a symbolic link. > ... > > -r file > True if file exists and is readable. > > I don't know how portable -L is, but -f is certain to not give the correct > behavior on any OS that follows the above semantics. > > So -- if we have the option, it seems to me that -L is what we want. (If > someone's put something there that's not a symlink, there's no reason not to > stomp on it, as it will probably break the build anyway.) If neither -L nor > -e is portable, the only option left is -r, I guess.. > > Steve Langasek > postmodern programmer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Pam-list@redhat.com > https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pam-list --
