From owner-freebsd-questions Wed Oct 9 0:37:47 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30F5A37B401 for ; Wed, 9 Oct 2002 00:37:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rwcrmhc53.attbi.com (rwcrmhc53.attbi.com [204.127.198.39]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BABFC43E4A for ; Wed, 9 Oct 2002 00:37:45 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from swear@attbi.com) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([12.242.158.67]) by rwcrmhc53.attbi.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with ESMTP id <20021009073745.UAUG12956.rwcrmhc53.attbi.com@localhost.localdomain>; Wed, 9 Oct 2002 07:37:45 +0000 Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.localdomain (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g997eGoS004200; Wed, 9 Oct 2002 00:40:16 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from swear@attbi.com) Received: (from jojo@localhost) by localhost.localdomain (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) id g997e9XN004195; Wed, 9 Oct 2002 00:40:09 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from swear@attbi.com) X-Authentication-Warning: localhost.localdomain: jojo set sender to swear@attbi.com using -f To: Giorgos Keramidas Cc: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: help with ln "linking" Please! [attn manpage authors!] References: <200210082214.g98MEngt064064@lurza.secnetix.de> <20021008222505.GK83241@hades.hell.gr> From: swear@attbi.com (Gary W. Swearingen) Date: 09 Oct 2002 00:40:09 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20021008222505.GK83241@hades.hell.gr> Message-ID: Lines: 37 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.1 (Cuyahoga Valley) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Giorgos Keramidas writes: > > FWIW, the source doesn't have to be a file at all, in the > > case of symbolic links. I think the correct term is "link > > target" in that case -- that's how it is called in the > > standards (POSIX, SUSvX etc.). It looks like the manual has gotten the two arguments reversed. File /usr/src/bin/ln/ln.c has them in "target, source" order. So instead of "data source" it's "link source", with "link target" the programmer's way of saying "link destination". But I think the term "target" is too esoteric and jargon best left to section 3 of the manual and POSIX. My legacy Linux manual has "ln [options] source [dest]". I'm afraid that changing the manual to use "source" in the name of the last argument (like the C code does), will draw complaints and confuse people used to having "source" in the name of the first argument. I'm thinking it might be best to drop the term altogether and use this: ln [-fhinsv] linked_filename [link_filename] ln [-fhinsv] linked_filename ... dir_filename link existing_filename alternate_filename This is cleaner, but I think "filename" should be standard in filenames. ln [-fhinsv] to [from] ln [-fhinsv] to ... dir link existing alternate > True. /etc/malloc.conf is a nice example of cases that this holds > true, and the 'source' doesn't have to be a real file, or exist at all > for that matter. Yuck; malloc.conf is nasty. Worse than encoding file types and dates in filenames. (But not quite as bad as encoding cookies and other data in URLs.) To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message