Subject: Re: netatalk in production environments....(RFC)
From: Michalowski Thierry (Thierry.Michalowski@edipresse.ch)
Date: Wed Jun 14 2000 - 08:33:54 EDT
Sak Wathanasin wrote:
> It seems to me that it wasn't the alias that was the problem, it was
> caused by whoever created the new version. The thing to do there,
> IMHO, was to dup the original folder, rename it to "copy of the
> mm/dd/yyyy" and put the up-to-date contents where all the aliases
> were pointing. Same as you would do on a Unix system with sym-links.
Err....I think you're wasting some resources when doing that.
Did you ever notice that symlinks _can_ point to "nothing"? Even a
non-existent file/directory?
Try typing an 'ln -s /a/non/existent/thing mysymlink' ... and then do a 'ls
-l' .
This is why they are interesting above hardlinks, and also why they are
_not_ the same as aliases, be them aliases in the MacOS or Windows world,
btw...
Symlinks are not _linked_ to anything, they just _point_ to what you want to
name....
Just to clarify a bit as a long-time Unix user... ;-)
--
Thierry Michalowski /
Edipresse Publications S.A \\\' , / //
Informatique de Production \\\// _/ //'
33,av. de la gare \_-//' / //'
1001 LAUSANNE SUISSE \ /// //'
phone: +41 21 349 46 26 / >> \\\`
mailto:Thierry.Michalowski@edipresse.ch /,)-^>> _\`
(/ \\ / \\\
"Unix is user-friendly... // //\\\
It is just selective about who its friends are" ((`
============================================================================
This message has been checked with GRIMEsweeper which has detected a virus
embedded in this plain text message. You should now delete your entire hard
drive and rinse your eyes with soapy water to ensure it doesn't spread.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Wed Jan 17 2001 - 14:31:03 EST