Brian J. Tarricone
bjt23 at cornell.edu
Mon Jul 16 10:00:30 PDT 2007
Jakob Petsovits wrote:
> 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:
>>> or it could be:
>>> 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'
>> 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"?
Not to sound flippant or dismissive, but... who cares? It's already how
it is, so why make extra work for something that's purely an
implementation detail that end-users won't see anyway? If it's
necessary to expand the use of emblem-symbolic-link for other types of
links, this can be noted in the description in the icon naming spec.
More information about the xdg