Just curious: why is /usr/bin/python not a symlink?
Thomas Rachel
nutznetz-0c1b6768-bfa9-48d5-a470-7603bd3aa915 at spamschutz.glglgl.de
Fri Feb 24 02:47:55 EST 2012
More information about the Python-list mailing list
Fri Feb 24 02:47:55 EST 2012
- Previous message (by thread): Just curious: why is /usr/bin/python not a symlink?
- Next message (by thread): Just curious: why is /usr/bin/python not a symlink?
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Am 23.02.2012 20:54 schrieb Jerry Hill: > If I recall > correctly, for directories, that's the number of entries in the > directory. No. It is the number of subdirectories (it counts their ".." entries) plus 2 (the parent directory and the own "." entry). > Even with that, it's hard to tell what files are hardlinked together, > and figuring it out by inode is a pain in the neck. Personally, I > prefer symlinks, even if they introduce a small performance hit. Not only that, they have slightly different semantics. With hardlinks you can say "I want this file, no matter if someone else holds it as well". Symlinks say "I want the file which is referred to by there". In the given case, however, this difference doesn't count, and I agree on you that a symlink would be better here. Thomas
- Previous message (by thread): Just curious: why is /usr/bin/python not a symlink?
- Next message (by thread): Just curious: why is /usr/bin/python not a symlink?
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Python-list mailing list