Very Computer

by **The man from the great white nor** » Sat, 30 May 1998 04:00:00

I stumbled on this quirk on solaris. Under Digital UNIX, the find
command automatically follows symbolic links. Is there other "tricks"
related to symlinks on solaris that do not behave like Digital Unix ?

TIA

NOTE: To reply via e-mail, remove the 'anti-spam-' from my e-mail adress

by **Casper H.S. Dik - Network Security Engine** » Sat, 30 May 1998 04:00:00

[[ PLEASE DON'T SEND ME EMAIL COPIES OF POSTINGS ]]

Quote:>I stumbled on this quirk on solaris. Under Digital UNIX, the find
>command automatically follows symbolic links. Is there other "tricks"
>related to symlinks on solaris that do not behave like Digital Unix ?

So it spins in a loop?

Well, it's hard to say, but off hand (not sure if DU is different);

- chown follows symlinks (unless -h is specified) and it will
not recursively descend into symlinks.
- chown(2) also follows symlinks; lchown() chowns symlinks.

This is different from BSD unix where chown() never follows symlinks.

Casper
--
Expressed in this posting are my opinions. They are in no way related
to opinions held by my employer, Sun Microsystems.
Statements on Sun products included here are not gospel and may
be fiction rather than truth.

by **Peter Ben** » Sat, 30 May 1998 04:00:00

>>I stumbled on this quirk on solaris. Under Digital UNIX, the find
>>command automatically follows symbolic links. Is there other "tricks"
>>related to symlinks on solaris that do not behave like Digital Unix ?

>So it spins in a loop?

The original poster must be mistaken - DU's find does not follow
symlinks. It could be that he is acutally using GNU find - the test
the configure script uses to see if you are on a system with stat or
lstat is broken and it erroneously configures find not to use lstat.

Peter

by **Griff Miller I** » Sun, 31 May 1998 04:00:00

Quote:
> I stumbled on this quirk on solaris. Under Digital UNIX, the find
> command automatically follows symbolic links. Is there other "tricks"
> related to symlinks on solaris that do not behave like Digital Unix ?

There is the -follow switch to the find command:

-follow Always true; causes symbolic links to be fol-
lowed. When following symbolic links, find
keeps track of the directories visited so
that it can detect infinite loops; for exam-
ple, such a loop would occur if a symbolic
link pointed to an ancestor. This expression
should not be used with the -type l expres-
sion.

--
Griff Miller II
Senior Unix Sysadmin
PGS Tensor

by **Griff Miller I** » Sun, 31 May 1998 04:00:00

> > I stumbled on this quirk on solaris. Under Digital UNIX, the find
> > command automatically follows symbolic links. Is there other "tricks"
> > related to symlinks on solaris that do not behave like Digital Unix ?

> There is the -follow switch to the find command:

> -follow Always true; causes symbolic links to be fol-
> lowed. When following symbolic links, find
> keeps track of the directories visited so
> that it can detect infinite loops; for exam-
> ple, such a loop would occur if a symbolic
> link pointed to an ancestor. This expression
> should not be used with the -type l expres-
> sion.

Oops, never mind - I didn't see the full Subject: of your post until
after I sent. :^}

--
Griff Miller II
Senior Unix Sysadmin
PGS Tensor

by **Michael Wa** » Sun, 31 May 1998 04:00:00

Quote:> - chown follows symlinks (unless -h is specified) and it will
> not recursively descend into symlinks.
> - chown(2) also follows symlinks; lchown() chowns symlinks.

You can NOT make "touch" NOT to following symlinks.

by **Casper H.S. Dik - Network Security Engine** » Mon, 01 Jun 1998 04:00:00

[[ PLEASE DON'T SEND ME EMAIL COPIES OF POSTINGS ]]

>You can NOT make "touch" NOT to following symlinks.

Touch has no meaning on symlinks; (sym,links cannot be modified; therefor
changing the last mod time is meaningless)

Can you do this in otehr unxies? What does utimes() do?
There's no lutimes() that I've heard off.

Casper

--
Expressed in this posting are my opinions. They are in no way related
to opinions held by my employer, Sun Microsystems.
Statements on Sun products included here are not gospel and may
be fiction rather than truth.

by **Chris Thomps** » Thu, 04 Jun 1998 04:00:00

>[[ PLEASE DON'T SEND ME EMAIL COPIES OF POSTINGS ]]

>>You can NOT make "touch" NOT to following symlinks.

>Touch has no meaning on symlinks; (sym,links cannot be modified; therefor
>changing the last mod time is meaningless)

Well, in some filing systems [e.g. Solaris 2 ufs] readlink(2), including the
implicit one in open(2), updates the atime. And of course lchown(2) updates
the ctime. I suppose it's the missing writelink(2) which would update mtime. :-)

Quote:>Can you do this in otehr unxies? What does utimes() do?
>There's no lutimes() that I've heard off.

>Casper

Chris Thompson

Very Computer

Q: find command does not follow symbolic links unless you specify -follow ?

Q: find command does not follow symbolic links unless you specify -follow ?

Q: find command does not follow symbolic links unless you specify -follow ?

Q: find command does not follow symbolic links unless you specify -follow ?

Q: find command does not follow symbolic links unless you specify -follow ?

Q: find command does not follow symbolic links unless you specify -follow ?

Q: find command does not follow symbolic links unless you specify -follow ?

Q: find command does not follow symbolic links unless you specify -follow ?

Q: find command does not follow symbolic links unless you specify -follow ?