<p dir="ltr">On 15 Sep 2016 03:21, "Patrick Williams" <<a href="mailto:patrick@stwcx.xyz">patrick@stwcx.xyz</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 11:23:47PM +0200, Martin Jansa wrote:<br>
> > It was also proposed and discussed some 15 months ago and it was packaging<br>
> > issue not handling hardlinks correctly:<br>
> > <a href="http://lists.openembedded.org/pipermail/openembedded-core/2015-April/103939.html">http://lists.openembedded.org/pipermail/openembedded-core/2015-April/103939.html</a><br>
> ><br>
> > I believe this was fixed then, but maybe it got broken again?<br>
><br>
> Sorry, this is my fault. I didn't think about hard-links. I was just<br>
> skimming the cpio extract for parts that could be trimmed out and<br>
> noticed it.<br>
><br>
> $ ls -i *fsck*<br>
> 19455718 e2fsck<br>
> 19455671 fsck<br>
> 19455718 fsck.ext2<br>
> 19455718 fsck.ext3<br>
> 19455718 fsck.ext4<br>
> 19455718 fsck.ext4dev<br>
> 19455679 fsck.minix<br>
> 19455695 fsck.minix.util-linux<br>
> 19455675 fsck.util-linux<br>
><br>
> Is there a reason to prefer hardlinks over softlinks, for my own<br>
> education? My desktop system used softlinks for fsck.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Mine too. I don't really care, soft links are surely more obvious, though.</p>
<p dir="ltr">A.<br></p>