symbolic link curiousity in 3.6.0

Tue Apr 1 10:07:09 GMT 2025

Greetings, Paul Eggert!
> On 3/31/25 12:26, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> ls(1) always potentially shows a past state anyway.

> Sure, but traditionally (and I'm talking about 7th edition Unix) a single
> output line of 'ls' corresponded to a state obtained atomically from the
> file system. I realize we can't always do that nowadays but the further we
> depart from it, the worse 'ls' users will be.

The link dereferencing is a courtesy of LS, and in no way it is guaranteed to
be stable in a long run.
As Corinna pointed out, even the state LS is displayed could be stale by the
time it reached the user's eyes.
-- 
With best regards,
Andrey Repin
Tuesday, April 1, 2025 13:05:20
Sorry for my terrible english...