Thomas 'Balu' Walter tw at
Wed Mar 14 10:04:27 PST 2001

+-Gerard Beekmans-(gerard at[14.03.01 16:06]:
> So far i've seen two argument why using hardlinks may be better:
> 1) performance wise
> 2) saves space
> Why I would use symlinks instead of hardlinks:
> I find them easier to manage. A simple ls -l tells you what it points to and 
> if you have colours enabled with ls you can see what file is a symlink. I'm 
> thinking i create a hardlink and 5 months later I wouldn't know I did so. A 
> comprehensive ls -i would be needed to try and find that other inode 
> somewhere on the partition in order to find that file it's linked to.
> Personally the 'easier to manage' outweighs the hardlink pro's. But that's 
> just me of course. I'm not particularly known for doing things that most 
> other people do, so I'll see what the majority on lfs-discuss thinks about it.

I'll agree with that, even if it can easily be turned around:
If you delete a file a symlink points to the symlink does not work
anymore - if you did it with hardlinks it'll still work - you might even
"restore" gzip with that.

Don't count me wrong - I am absolutely not sure what to do - I like
symlinks more myself, but what is the best solution for LFS? :)

btw - FHS says sh can be a hard- or symlink to bash, same with gunzip
and zcat. But /bin/csh then again should only be a symlink to /bin/tcsh?


More information about the lfs-book mailing list