Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

hardlinked symlinks are not supported #2379

Open
ThomasWaldmann opened this issue Apr 2, 2017 · 7 comments

Comments

@ThomasWaldmann
Copy link
Member

commented Apr 2, 2017

This part of #2324 is not addressed yet (except that symlinks are not in the documented list of supported hardlinked fs objects).

The problem here is the dual-use of item.source (see #2343), which should be solved first.

Then, hardlinked symlinks could be supported in same way as other hardlinked fs objects.

Note:

  • This is a minor issue, likely nobody uses hardlinked symlinks anyway.
  • If somebody uses them, the only negative effect is that such hardlinks are not archived as hardlinks (and thus: not restored as hardlinks).

@ThomasWaldmann ThomasWaldmann added this to the 1.1.0b5 milestone Apr 2, 2017

@enkore

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Apr 2, 2017

  • Since permissions on symlinks are ignored and symlinks cannot be changed after creation, the usual benefits of hardlinks don't apply. The only observable effect is st_nlink (and one less inode used).

@ThomasWaldmann ThomasWaldmann removed this from the 1.1.0b5 milestone Apr 3, 2017

@enkore enkore added the filesystem label Apr 6, 2017

@nilsmeyer

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Jun 18, 2018

EDIT: Misunderstood the meaning of "hardlinked symlinks", which is supposed to be a hard link to a symbolic link. I didn't even know this was possible.

@BarbzYHOOL

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Jul 17, 2018

"This is a minor issue, likely nobody uses hardlinked symlinks anyway."

I do use them

EDIT: or not

@BarbzYHOOL

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Aug 3, 2018

so when saving hardlinks with borg, they are instead soft symlinks? do I understand right?

@ThomasWaldmann

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member Author

commented Aug 3, 2018

@BarbzYHOOL read the issue title again.

borg supports hardlinks and it supports symlinks and both are backupped as it should be.

The only problem are "hardlinked symlinks".

@BarbzYHOOL

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Aug 3, 2018

Lol, my bad! hardlinked symlinks, I thought it meant "hardlinks". Also seems like nilsmeyer didn't get it either "It's just called a hard link (as opposed to a symbolic link, a link is either hard or symbolic)."

Now I understand better why you said "almost nobody use them anyway" (but to be fair, most people also say "do'nt use hardlinks ever, use symlinks" so that's why I confused)

What the hell is a hardlinked symlink? a hardlink on a symlink?

@ThomasWaldmann

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member Author

commented Aug 3, 2018

yes.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
4 participants
You can’t perform that action at this time.