Ludovic Courtès schreef op za 02-10-2021 om 16:14 [+0200]:
> > Why only use the 'basename' of a file name instead of the full name?
> > (Consider the case where a user has multiple "guix.scm" or "manifest.scm".)
> > This turns out to be unproblematic, because stat:dev and stat:ino is included
> > as well, though including (a part of) the file name is superfluous because
> > stat:dev and stat:ino are included.
> > 
> > Could you document the rationale for including the file name, and why only
> > the basename is included instead of the full file name?
> 
> Actually it’s probably not useful to include the file (base)name.  I
> think initially I thought about distinguishing between guix.scm and
> manifest.scm, since they return different kinds of objects, but dev/ino
> is probably enough.  WDYT?

Looking at https://lwn.net/Articles/866582/, it appears when BTRFS and NFS are
combined, it is possible for two dev/ino pairs to be the same for different files.
It appears to be considered a bug but non-trivial to fix.  Thus, dev/ino apparently
is not always sufficient, so it may be reasonable to include the file name.

I would include the full file name, because the basename is often rather generic
("guix.scm", "manifest.scm"), though this depends on the habits of the user.

Greetings,
Maxime.