On Tue, Aug 22, 2006 at 09:48:31AM -0500, Rex Dieter wrote: > Axel Thimm wrote: > >On Mon, Aug 21, 2006 at 11:21:41PM -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > >>rpmlint spits symlink-should-be-relative warnings when it sees an > >>absolute symlink, and generally folks have fixed things up when > >>presented with the warning. > > > >what is the rationale behind preferring relative to absolute symlinks > >(unless relative means in the same folder)? I would even prefer it the > >other way around to avoid breakage. > > depends on your definition of breakage, whether the package is > relocatable (not that we worry too much about that), whether the target > of the symlink is in *this* pkg, etc... (: Dangling symlinks break with relative and absolute links, but relative symlinks break whenever "folder/.." != ".", which is the case for symlinked folders. Example: Suppose you'd like to have /var/mail/foo link to /var/bar and do that with ../bar, you'll end up at /var/spool/bar instead. Symlinks in the filesystem as shipped are admittedly scarce, but it happens quite often to me that my system partition explodes and I need to move something over to a data partition symlinking it back. That would break relative symlinks, too. Relative symlinks w/o "..", e.g. starting in the same folder, don't break, though. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgphfYnoY0PHl.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
