On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 09:57:58AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > Hi, > > To summarize, here are a few use cases: > 1) A directory that lives in the package is replaced by a symbolic link > to another partition (I've done it in a space crunch, people sharing > directories using AFS run into similar issues.)
> I think case 1 is more important than case 2, since the latter > is a convenience and useful for remote admin, but case 1 helps out the > local machine, and is often a godsend in critical nearly out of disk > space on important server situation. Not really anymore, since linux 2.6 allows to bind-mount directories and files which is generally more robust than symlinks. Maybe it is time to sanction this approach over the use of symlinks. One issue with symlink in the current arrangement is that it is difficult to link files to packages, see bug #246006. Cheers, -- Bill. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Imagine a large red swirl here. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
