Re: ln: make symbolic links default

[Mike Hodson]

On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 1:30 PM, Nellis, Kenneth (Conduent) <
address@hidden> wrote:

>
> What is the transition plan? For example, I have scripts that create hard
> links, and I want them to continue to create hard links. What can I do in
> advance to modify my scripts so that when the patch is installed, they
> will not break?
>
> I too am curious/concerned about this; I have a number of scripts deployed
random places, and when/if the systems involved get updated to newer
coreutils (if ever) I no longer can continue to use the same scripts ; I
further must branch my scripts for any new Coreutils systems far in advance
of having to maintain the old ones, but it becomes a large hassle of
unknown breakage dates on systems I don't even maintain anymore.

I for one do not appreciate this fundamental change to 'ln'.



> I see that -h will be offered, but it isn't valid now, so I can't prepare.
> It will be too late after I install the patch. It seems a transition
> version that gives us a chance to prepare before pulling the plug is
> warranted.
>
> I would like to see a transition version that recognizes an environment
> variable that specifies the default link type, and that the code
> recognizes both -h and -s. Then I can prepare and when the patch hits,
> nothing breaks. Also, the transition version should not recognize ANY
> defaults (-h, -s, or environment variable) so that problem areas are
> identified.
>

indeed, a brand new version of 'ln' that "does nothing" and breaks totally,
vs "does the wrong thing" and 'may silently work or fail depending', is
about the only way to force a change like this.
Most things of mine 'ln -sf' today ; but some simply 'ln' and these are the
problematic ones.

Thanks,

Mike