On Sun, Feb 18, 2018 at 12:47:24PM +0000, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 04:08:09PM +0000, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 09:53:35PM +0000, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > > sln (staticly linked ‘ln’) was removed from glibc recently: > > > > > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1531546 > > > > > > The explanation for this was: > > > > > > "The sln program is no longer useful, so we will not ship it anymore." > > > > > > and it was removed from Rawhide 3 days later. > > > > > > There are some %post scripts which still use this, notably > > > ca-certificates, so that's now broken. But more to the point what do > > > you do if you are in a situation where you need to make a symlink to > > > save some core shared library on the currently running system? > > > > > > I also don't think rather fundamental, useful and old tools like this > > > should be removed without discussion. > > > > Why is normal ln not enough? It should be installed and runnable on > > pretty much any system, even during upgrades of glibc and other basic > > libraries. > > The idea behind sln is that it works even if you've broken the libc > symlink. Right. But does this really happen? In my experience, 10 years ago this kind of stuff happened, either because the tools were less reliable, or rather more likely because the human operating them didn't yet know how to operate them properly. I think we have all moved far in the direction of systems-as-cattle, and when we get to the point where libc is hosed, well, that's it, we provision a new installation. Zbyszek _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
