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, BjÃ¸rn 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]
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk