Lionel Elie Mamane wrote: > (Further discussion should happen on [EMAIL PROTECTED], but please > CC me.) > > During Manoj's "policy" talk at DebConf8, Gerfried opened the subject > of the policy's stand on relative and absolute symlinks, which > currently is "absolute if going through top-level, relative > otherwise". > > I wanted to give another data-point: Mailman switched its intra-/var/ > symlinks to be absolute, because relative symlinks there broke setups > of people that "moved" their /var/lib/mailman/ directory to another > partition, not through mounting, but through replacing their > /var/lib/mailman/ directory by a symlink to elsewhere - > e.g. /u/mailman . This broke e.g. relative symlinks > /var/lib/mailman/log to ../../logs/mailman. Bugs #413604 and #408855 > contain the whole story. > > As policy doesn't technically *mandate* relative symlinks, but says > "in general", we felt we could deviate from our own initiative. > > I must say I don't quite see in what scenario relative symlinks make > something work that absolute symlinks do not make work. > > So, is there any reason at all to use relative symlinks?
I think it was done for efficiency, but I think correctness is more important. ciao cate -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]