Subject: Re: [boost] Boost Modularization: did we get it right?
From: Bjørn Roald (bjorn_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-05-10 23:22:09
On 05/11/2012 01:55 AM, Steven Watanabe wrote:
> If symlinks are supported:
> Sym link the directory
> if there is a conflict, create
> a subdirectory and symlink all
> the members.
> Else if hardlinks are supported:
> Hard-link all leaves
Are there a rationale for preferring symbolic linked files over hard
links. One point that comes too my mind is that the master/link
relationship is more explicit, while a hard link is more like a shared
pointer with common ownership. So hard links will not provide any
effect on the forward header given that the master be renamed or deleted.
Other than that, I have always thought of hard links as something that
must be a bit more performant, but I may be dead wrong on that.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk