On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 at 16:15, Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 05, 2024 at 05:50:54PM +0000, Emil Velikov wrote: > >On Mon, 5 Feb 2024 at 14:30, Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >[snip] > > > >> >I'm not a huge fan of using relative symlinks, especially if the tool> >is run as root. In my experience that makes things harder to audit and > >> >prevent accidental breakages. > >> > >> I'm completely in the opposite camp. Relative symlinks actually make > >> sure the thing you are running is what you are expecting. Nothing should > >> really point outside of $prefix expecting that is mounted on /. > >> > > > >That is true and I fully agree. Yet the contents of DESTDIR are not > >meant to be run as-is - it's used for "staging" [1]. > > > >[1] https://www.gnu.org/software/make/manual/html_node/DESTDIR.html > > > >> Several years back there was also the issue with packaging, which would > >> complain when symlinks pointed outside what was being packaged. It is > >> dangerous when using absolute symlinks because if the tool used to copy > >> follows the symlinks, it ends up with the wrong binary, copying the host > >> bin rather than what was just built. > >> > > > >That sounds like a horrible bug, which can easily break your system > >regardless of the project. > > > >Would you consider dropping the leading `./` aka can we use `$(LN_S) > >kmod $(DESTDIR)$(bindir)/$$tool;`? > >Seems to be prevailing on my system with over 90% instances. > > seems good to me. I will squash that and push. > Respectful poke? Thanks Emil
