|
From: <ebi...@ln...> - 2003-07-15 16:21:46
|
Anselm Martin Hoffmeister <an...@ho...> writes: > Hello Eric, > > Tuesday, July 15, 2003, 2:00:35 PM, you wrote: > > > I would suggest that we error on an absolute symlink. I have > > a very hard time seeing how an absolute symlink could be used properly > > in this context. I guess in an nfs-root situation it might work. > > > But I keep having visions of absolute symlinks pointing to a different > > location on the server than on exported nfs subtree. > > My knowledge about NFS is not so great (it just grew yesterday...), > but AFAIK the absolute symlink to any file in the server tree will > always be accessible (if it is exported at all) as > nfs://server/<path> > This is especially true if it points to a file in the same directory > in which it lives. The case I am making is that normally you don't export your root file system from the server. Just like tftp where normally all that is exported is /tftpboot. With nfs usually it is some subset of the filesystem that is exported. Which is why I think handling absolute paths in a way that gives a reasonable error message is much preferable. > However making absolute errors go ooops is no great deal, just enter a > return -22; in the right line in the if-statement, around lines 340 > iirc. This is kind of policy, not necessarily technical decision. Totally. > Decide as you like, I'm fine without absolute symlinks anyway. Just in > response to Ken's mail I though about them at all, previously there > were only relative links implemented. I am fine with absolute symlink if someone can make a reasonable case for them. But until then I just want to say no. Eric |
