jpetso at gmx.at
Mon Jul 16 01:20:13 PDT 2007
On Monday, 16. July 2007, Brian J. Tarricone wrote:
> James Richard Tyrer wrote:
> > This: "emblem-symbolic-link" appears to be another issue.
> > I think that this should be:
> > emblem-link-symbolic
> > or it could be:
> > emblem-symbolic_link
> > but there is no way that "link" is a member of "symbolic". OTOH, there
> > are multiple types of "link". IIUC, Linux has 'symbolic' and 'hard'
> > links.
> Well, hard links can't be distinguished from normal files. They *are*
> just normal files. A hard link is simply a directory entry pointing to
> a particular inode. When we talk about 'hard linking' we usually mean
> that we've created a new link to an existing inode, but, post-link,
> there's no way to tell which directory entry was the 'original' and
> which is the 'copy'.
For that matter, is is necessary at all to have "symbolic" included in the
icon name if the only user-visible link type is symbolic links anyhow?
Why not change the name to just "emblem-link"?
More information about the xdg