Re: Directory structure
On Thu, 16 Mar 2000, Ross Boylan wrote:
> At 11:31 AM 3/16/00, Adam Di Carlo wrote:
> >Anne's approach, basically a symlink farm, is not a very good idea--
> >remember that most windows FTP clients don't handle symlinks properly.
> Well, I think before we do any big-think, we need to decide what is and
> isn't OK in terms of links. I thought the consensus that the links were
> not a problem. More hazily, I think the idea was to use hard links for the
> servers and symlinks for the CD's. I don't have any particular expertise
I proposed the other way around: as far as you (-boot people, FTP servers) are
concerned it's symlinks, the -cd team will make sure it ends up as hardlinks
on the CDs.
> in this. I will vouch for the fact that windows ftp clients often screw up
> symlinks, having recently tried a smattering of them on the debian archive.
Hmmm. I had the (maybe wrong) impression that FTP clients would regard
symlinks as regular files and just get them regardlessly. If this really is a
problem, we need hardlinks on FTP servers as well. The preferred mirroring
method (rsync) preserves hardlinks, and they'll end up on CDs as well, so this
is no problem.