Should symbolic link target directories have foward slash?

NotionCommotion · 11-16-2014, 02:28 PM

I created two symbolic links to "../application/lib/" (a folder). Both seem to work (Centos 6.6). Is one better than the other? If the same, is one more commonly used than the other? Thank you

Code:

ln -s ../application/lib/ lib
ln -s ../application/lib xxx

lrwxrwxrwx.  1 Michael Michael    19 Nov 16 12:18 lib -> ../application/lib/
lrwxrwxrwx.  1 Michael Michael    18 Nov 16 12:19 xxx -> ../application/lib

pan64 · 11-16-2014, 02:35 PM

I think the first one can only link to a dir, the second one can point to anything.

NotionCommotion · 11-16-2014, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan64

I think the first one can only link to a dir, the second one can point to anything.

You appear to be correct. I was able to create a symbolic link to a file followed by a forwardslash, but couldn't follow it.

Should the forward slash be used when linking to a folder?

pan64 · 11-16-2014, 03:12 PM

You can test that too. It is not required, but you are allowed to do that.

NotionCommotion · 11-16-2014, 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan64

You can test that too. It is not required, but you are allowed to do that.

Thanks Pan, I had already tested it before posting my question, and see that it is allowed (at least on my distro). But is the "right" thing to do? And if it doesn't matter, what do the Linux guru's do. I figure I should at least be consistent, but need a direction to be consistent.

pan64 · 11-17-2014, 12:09 AM

I think most of them (gurus?) uses without that slash at the end, but there can be a reason to use it that way. But I have never met it.

camelrider · 11-17-2014, 12:34 PM

If the target directory's parent contains a file with the same name as the target directory the forward slash will select the directory.