From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp.jhmg.net (smtp.jhmg.net [147.182.185.113]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C09043855587 for ; Fri, 21 Jul 2023 21:54:09 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org C09043855587 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=jhmg.net Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=jhmg.net Received: from [192.168.10.7] (c-24-21-153-184.hsd1.or.comcast.net [24.21.153.184]) (Authenticated sender: jhg) by smtp.jhmg.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CB5D06087F for ; Fri, 21 Jul 2023 21:54:08 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=jhmg.net; s=smtp; t=1689976449; bh=iYqv8++nPIXzI2qQggmfXZwnbNF1Sdw6tuV5iK+EkVo=; h=Date:Reply-To:Subject:To:References:From:In-Reply-To:From; b=EooIcSE8sKLRzsD5qRMM8YuU/PCaotRU0BUr56VMRCdPm5bf+Mv+cV3yHKwYehkg4 lVIM+AJbsyLm5Q5DvSSLKcUeWd5Fz3qVAFHxc4Lz5bIlUxaPFDzPulEkrofRwrHOfV x/niMg+vsIYGcoedpYvzX5Srs0PeqabxQiqh3NU8= Message-ID: Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2023 14:54:08 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/102.0 Thunderbird/102.13.0 Reply-To: jhg@acm.org Subject: Re: Most git executables are hard links to git.exe? Content-Language: en-US To: cygwin@cygwin.com References: From: Jim Garrison In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,TXREP,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: On 07/21/23 14:52, Brian Inglis wrote: > On 2023-07-21 14:59, Jim Garrison via Cygwin wrote: >> Git comes with over 100 executables, mostly in /usr/libexec/git-core, >> that all appear to be *hard* links to /bin/git, in both Cygwin and >> Windows. The Windows fsutil command shows they're all hard linked: [snip] >> I'm curious to know if there's a specific reason for this implementation >> that would make it the choice over symbolic links. > > For the same reason you are complaining about backups not taking > hardlinks into account: to avoid distributing 400MB instead of 3MB. > > Cygwin backup utilities should be able to deal with these e.g. rsync -H, > --hard-links, although it appears xcopy and robocopy may not under > Windows 10; don't know about other utilities or Windows 11. But why not use symbolic links to accomplish the same thing? -- Jim Garrison jhg@acm.org