From: | Peter Avalos <pavalos@xxxxxxxxxxxx> |
Date: | Mon, 10 Nov 2008 18:10:42 -0500 |
Mail-followup-to: | commits@crater.dragonflybsd.org |
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 02:02:05PM -0800, Matthew Dillon wrote: > > I don't know about this. I think I would prefer that symlinks not > be followed when named on the command line, with or without -R. If > our chflags is going to start operating on symlinks via lchflags(), > we do not want to do this anyway. It just adds more confusion. > Well I expected chflags's behavior to be like chown -- that is, if I chflags a symlink, I expect it to do the operation on the underlying file, just like chown would do. To operate on the actual symlink, I'm going to add a -h option to chflags which will use the new lchflags syscall. I don't think my assumption or expectations are out of line. Otherwise, there's no way to do any chflags ops through a symlink. --Peter
Attachment:
pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature