On 7 March 2018 at 12:34, Robert P. J. Day <rpjday(a)crashcourse.ca> wrote:
On Wed, 7 Mar 2018, Ahmad Samir wrote:
> On 6 March 2018 at 14:34, Robert P. J. Day <rpjday(a)crashcourse.ca> wrote:
> > i'm curious about RH packaging policy that dictates that some
> > command variants are packaged for fedora to install with symlinks
> > and others with hardlinks.
> > trivial example in /usr/bin on my fedora 27 system:
> > -rwsr-xr-x. 1 root root 52984 Aug 2 2017 at
> > lrwxrwxrwx. 1 root root 2 Aug 2 2017 atq -> at
> > lrwxrwxrwx. 1 root root 2 Aug 2 2017 atrm -> at
> > so even though all of those "commands" are in the very same
> > atq and atrm are supported via symlinks, not hardlinks.
> I am not an expert, some commands act differently when called
> differently; so executing /bin/atq would make the 'at' binary behave
> differently than when it's executed as plain 'at'.
> The same logic applies to bash, /bin/sh is a symlink to /bin/bash,
> but when bash is invoked as sh it acts differently than when invoked
> as 'bash'. Have a look at the bash manual page for more info.
yes, i'm aware of this, and i'm pretty sure whether a hardlink or
symlink is used would make no difference.
You are right, I missed the bit about hardlinks. Sorry for the noise.