48
... (reddthat.com)
submitted 10 months ago by to c/piracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
19 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 6 points 10 months ago* (4 children)

I never fully understood this concept. Why would I want my media files to remain in the "downloads" folder? It makes way more sense to move them to their appropriate "media" directories so their associated library software can see and properly catalog them.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    With hardlinks you would have both. File content can have multiple names pointing to it. That name basically includes the directory tree. So you can have ~/downloads/song.flac and ~/media/music/artist/album/song.flac. Both would point to exactly the same data on the drive. Not just a copy, but exactly the same spot on the drive.

    As to why, see OPs post.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago* (2 children)

    Right, but the media management software (*arr stack, in my case) already knows what it has and won't call to the downloader for duplicates unless manually triggered to do so. It just seems like an overcomplication to have hardlinks in multiple directories when you really only need the relevant files to be in the media directories...

    I might be overthinking this.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    You might be underthinking it. With hardlinks the media management software looks in the media folder for the music files, while the downloading software looks in the downloads folder to avoid downloading duplicates. The files are stored only once but both softwares are happy.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •