Callum Lerwick wrote:
On Thu, 2008-10-09 at 07:50 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
The symlinks could even be a
separate package that people who didn't like the idea could remove.
They don't even need to depend on the target package - if the target
executable doesn't exist you aren't any worse off with the symlink than
without. Nothing would have to be rebuilt.
Wouldn't work. You'd either have one package with a mess of dangling
symlinks, or you'd need a symlink package per main package which would
be as much or more work than just putting it in the main package to
begin with.
Yes, putting it in the main package is the correct approach but that
hasn't been done and doesn't seem that likely. One package with
symlinks that might be dangling solves the real problem at the expense
of possibly annoying a few people who would have the simple option of
removing the package if they imagine that dangling symlinks are a
problem. Are there really installations that don't include ifconfig
anyway? How many others are there with common non-root usage?
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
