No. Vfat doesn't have any notion remotely related to symlinks or hard links.
> My own thoughts is that one or the other of these are pretty much
> identical to what Win9x calls "shortcuts", and those are clearly
> supported, so we should be able to use whatever mechanism that uses to
> support them as well. However, I'm probably well off beam here...
Actually "shortcuts" are very different from symlinks. For a start, the
Windows filesystem doesn't parse or understand them: they are only interpreted
by Explorer. They're also a lot more general than symlinks, since they also
contain command line args, urls, and so on. There's no good or close semantic
match between symlinks and shortcuts which means its a bad idea to treat them
as if there were.
J
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/