># and i think they do.  link(2) is the only questionable one.  do you
># really want a hardlink to a symbolic link, or do you want a hard link
># to the actual file?
>
>Not questionable at all.  A symbolic link takes an inode, while a hard
>link does not.  Since link(2) explicitly creates hard links which are _by
>definition_ entries on the same device referring to the same inode, and
>thus indistinguishable from each other, if you hardlink to a symlink,
>you will have two symlinks in different places.
>
>"Whether both will work identically is left as an exercise for the reader."

ah, good point.  yes, to make a hardlink to a symlink when the
location of the new link might not work would be pointless.  link(2)
should, therefore, traverse the symlink.

unless you wish to rule out the possibility of creating a symlink that
points to something that doesn't exist.  :)

>If you want a hard link to an actual file, readlink()/link() becomes
>the way to go.

to a point, yes.

-- 
|-----< "CODE WARRIOR" >-----|
codewarrior@daemon.org             * "ah!  i see you have the internet
twofsonet@graffiti.com (Andrew Brown)                that goes *ping*!"
werdna@squooshy.com       * "information is power -- share the wealth."