Re: slink_cd 1.08
> On Fri, 26 Feb 1999, Philip Hands wrote:
> >BTW Would it not have been possible to use hard links for the many
> >instances where the files in hamm and slink are the same ? It seems
> >teribly wasteful to have two copies of all those files, not to mention
> >the fact that rsync should be able to pick up on the fact that the files
> >are hard-linked and just add the link, rather than transfer the file
> rsync may be able to cope there, but mirror and most of the other
> mirroring programs can't - that's why sym-links are used...
That's fine while slink was unstable, but as it comes up to release it needs
real files so that it can stand alone without reference to hamm.
What I was saying is that since we're putting the files into both slink and
hamm anyway (it's just happened, and it made my mirror about 1.2GB bigger),
why not convert the symlinks to hard links --- it's no worse than seperate
files for mirror users, but it's a big saving for rsync users.