Re: link(2) and symlinks

[Gunnar Ritter <yyyyyyyyyyyyy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Geoff Clare <yyy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> The SUSv1 requirements may have been based on an earlier standard
> (perhaps SVID?) or the rules may have been decided for SUSv1.

link(BA_OS) in SVID3 is silent about this issue, and I cannot see
any general rule in it that would be like the one for POSIX.1-2003 in
XBD ll. 3158-3159 "The function is required to act on the symbolic
link itself, or certain arguments direct that the function act on the
symbolic link itself."

> In any case, the requirement for link() to follow symlinks has been
> enforced for all UNIX(tm) certifications over the last 10 years
> (UNIX95, UNIX98 and UNIX03).

I personally do not find this acceptable. POSIX has a much wider scope
than XPG had, so POSIX issues should be discussed rather than silently
slip in from old XPG requirements.

        Gunnar