On 11/12/2015 10:11 AM, Jonathan Dieter wrote:
I'm reviewing nacl-binutils (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?i
d=1270355), which has hard links from /usr/x86_64-nacl/* to
/usr/bin/x86_64-nacl-*. According to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Pa
ckaging_Cross_Compiling_Toolchains, these should be symlinks, and
rpmlint complains about cross-directory-hard-links. Is there any
reason to convert these to symlinks or can we just leave them as hard
links?
IIRC, the only purpose of these "duplicate" binaries, is to support
non-canonicalized and canonicalized style of invoking these binaries[1]
(/usr/bin/$target-* vs. /usr/$target/bin/*). I am not sure, but AFAICT,
it doesn't matter to the GNU-toolchain, whether these links are
hardlinks or symlinks.
However, whether they are hardlinks or symlinks matters to rpm.
GNU-toolchain packages using hardlinks will fail to install, if
/usr/$target and /usr/bin are on different partitions [2].
I doubt this is an actual problem, because we already have several such
packages in Fedora, and at least I do not recall anybody ever having
complained about it (Probably nobody is putting /usr/bin and
/usr/$target on separate partitions)
So, when being pedantic, one would have to enforce symlinks, but when
being pragmatic, these hard links should not be much of a real world issue.
Ralf
[1] "canonicalized" == "target-tuple-prefixed" binaries,
e.g. "$target-as", typically installed to /usr/bin/.
"non-canonicalized" == "non-target-tuple-prefixed" binaries.
e.g. "as", typically installed to /usr/$target/bin/ar
[2] e.g. the mingw{32,64}- toolchains.
When putting /usr/i686-w64-mingw32 or /usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32 on a
separate partition, installing these toolchain's binutils/gccs will fail
miserably.
--
packaging mailing list
packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
