transform_symlinks ignored

[HaleTom]

With transform_symlinks:

All keys already loaded
(ins)ravi@svelte:~/mnt$ ls -l ravidroid/ext
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 19 Apr  1 15:45 ravidroid/ext -> /storage/2EE0-1B07/
(ins)ravi@svelte:~/mnt$

However, follow_symlinks works:

(ins)ravi@svelte:~/mnt$ sshfs -o follow_symlinks ravidroid: ravidroid
(ins)ravi@svelte:~/mnt$ ls -ld ravidroid/ext
drwxrwx--x 1 root 1015 32,768 Mar 31 13:17 ravidroid/ext
(ins)ravi@svelte:~/mnt$ 

1. Should the manpage distinguish transform_symlinks from follow_symlinks?

2. Perhaps the FAQ entry also needs an update.

[Nikratio]

I don't quite understand. The manpage already make a clear distinction:

       -o transform_symlinks
              transform absolute symlinks to relative

       -o follow_symlinks
              follow symlinks on the server

From what you've posted, I also don't see where transform_symlinks is being ignored.

Can you clarify?

[HaleTom]

I think I've finally wrapped my head around this.

For transform_symlinks I'd suggest the following update with example:

    Transform absolute symlinks as if they were being accessed remotely. 
    If `d` is a symlink to `/`,  this option will have `ls d` list the contents of the remote root directory

---

For follow_symlinks, perhaps the explanation text could be more explicit:

   Dereference symbolic links. Valid symbolic links will appear as the referenced file.
   Symbolic links without a target will not be dereferenced ???
   Option `transform_symlinks` will affect how the dereferencing occurs.

[Nikratio]

Uhm, I don't see how transform_symlinks will have any effect when follow_symlinks is specified. Or are you talking about dangling symlinks here?

[HaleTom]

Brilliant, thanks for documenting this!

Sorry, I don't know enough to answer your question, but you've covered my concern.

[albertz]

@Nikratio
Why is this closed? This is still broken. transform_symlinks does nothing. From the documentation, I was expecting that it transforms absolute symlinks to relative symlinks. Is that wrong? I still see all symlinks as absolute symlinks.