Re: [boost] Boost Modularization: did we get it right?

Subject: Re: [boost] Boost Modularization: did we get it right?
From: Lars Viklund (zao_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-05-11 03:22:36

On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 05:22:09AM +0200, Bjørn Roald wrote:
> 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.

AFS doesn't support hardlinks between files in different directories.
Some filesystems probably don't support them at all, too.

-- 
Lars Viklund | zao_at_[hidden]