On Mon, 2007-08-06 at 19:32 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Jeremy Katz <katzj@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > On Mon, 2007-07-30 at 16:12 -0400, Adam Jackson wrote: > >> This is merely an rpmlink complaint. Symlinks aren't mentioned in the > >> packaging policy at all. > > > The chroot concern is real, though. And unless there's a really good > > reason for it, symlinks _should_ be relative. Even if all they have in > > common is /. > > Can you show an example where that actually helps? I can think of a > number of cases where it'd be a bad idea, and none where it really > solves a problem. The case where your chroot is fully formed, but the system outside is something entirely different. The installer environment being one good example where this has bitten in the past :-) To the point where we actually have checks to avoid problems on upgrades looking at certain things and making sure that they're relative rather than absolute symlinks Jeremy -- Fedora-maintainers mailing list Fedora-maintainers@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers -- Fedora-maintainers-readonly mailing list Fedora-maintainers-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers-readonly
