Re: Fixed libstdc++2.10-glibc2.2 package
On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 10:06:21PM -0600, Raja R Harinath wrote:
> Alan Shutko <ats@acm.org> writes:
> > Raja R Harinath <harinath@cs.umn.edu> writes:
> >> 'ln -sf' is a GNU ln extension. It is safer to use 'ln -f -s',
> >> especially if you traffic on other unices.
> >
> > Huh? It's worked perfectly well on every Unix I've ever used. It
> > even works on SCO. Next you'll be telling us that we can't do "ls
> > -al" we need to do "ls -a -l".
>
> I meant the ordering of '-s' and '-f'.
>
> 'ln -sf' doesn't work on SunOS, IIRC. 'ln -f -s' does. Maybe 'ln
> -fs' works everywhere too.
Must be quite old SunOS:
[colinw@hades ~]$ uname -a
SunOS hades 5.6 Generic_105181-12 sun4u sparc SUNW,Ultra-2
[colinw@hades ~]$ ln -sf foo bar
[colinw@hades ~]$ ls -l bar
lrwxrwxrwx 1 colinw zeus 3 Nov 15 13:47 bar -> foo
At any rate it certainly does not appear to be as simple as a GNU
extension; according to FreeBSD's CVS repository, 4.4BSD used getopt()
in a way that allows 'ln -sf'.
Personally, I write POSIX shell code. Beyond that the variation is too
random to be able to write code that is both portable and useful.
--
Colin Watson [cjwatson@flatline.org.uk]
Reply to: