Re: Copying one hard drive to another - links

[Alvin Oga <aoga@Mail.Linux-Consulting.com>]

hi ya dan

i dont use hardlinks.. ( creates portability problems )

have fun
alvin

-- note that x.h is dereferenced back to /home/alvin/...
   which i think is bad but... thats a good reason NOT to
   use hardlinks ( ... just me ... )

-- x.s is what i want... create it relative and keep it relative

Maggie:/tmp/test# ln -s ./pinerc023592 x.s 
Maggie:/tmp/test# ln  ./pinerc023592 x.h
Maggie:/tmp/test# ls -la 
total 2
drwxr-xr-x   2 root     root         1024 May 14 20:11 ./
drwxrwxrwt   4 root     root         1024 May 14 20:08 ../
lrwxrwxrwx   2 root     root           24 May 14 20:08 pinerc023592 ->
/home/alvin/pinerc023592
lrwxrwxrwx   2 root     root           24 May 14 20:08 x.h ->
/home/alvin/pinerc023592
lrwxrwxrwx   1 root     root           14 May 14 20:11 x.s ->
./pinerc023592


*poof* to /tmp/test


On 14 May 2001, Dan Christensen wrote:

> Alvin Oga <aoga@Mail.Linux-Consulting.com> writes:
> 
> > i think the problem you have w/ hardlinks is more basic,
> > how to create hard links or soft links... not a tar problem
> 
> ...
> 
> > relative links is the preferred methodology ( hard or soft )
> > and avoids the leading / and allows the portability of
> > the files to be restored or shared in any level of hiercharcy
> 
> I don't think relative links make sense for hard links.  My
> understanding is that in the file system, hard links are
> stored by referencing the inode.  It is only tar that needs
> to convert this to a textual form for storage in the tar file.
> 
> By the way, the files I had problems unpacking were standard Debian
> executables in /usr/bin and /bin.  So I maintain that tar can't
> unpack hard links properly.  Test it out yourself if you don't
> believe me, Alvin!  :-)
> 
> Dan
>