Re: Re: link(2) and symlinks

[David Korn <yyy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Back in the mid eighties when BSD has symlinks and System V didn't,
I modified added symlinks to a SVR3 kernel.  Unlike the BSD
version, I had link no follow symlinks so that the reference
count on the symlink would be incremented.  Thus, link() and unlink()
were the exceptions to follow.  This more symmetrical behavior
allowed programs that used link()/unlink() to rename a file
to continue to work.  There were some other nicer benefits
as well which I can't remember.

I tried to sell this idea to developers of SVR4 but they felt
that compatibility with BSD was more important.

I presented my views on this at POSIX meetings when symlinks()
were discussed but arguments they were not adopted.
One argument against this way was that it required a symlink
to have a reference count.  POSIX did not want to require that
a symlink have any lstat() attribute other than a size.

David Korn
yyy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx