On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 09:57:58AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > Rhonda made the suggestion that we allow absolute links /usr/* > and /var/* symlinks to be absolute between different hierarchies, since > these hierarchies are often the target of relocation-via-symlinking.
> A suggestion was made that links in the /usr/share/doc/ > hierarchy could remain relative (/usr/share/doc/bash-doc/examples -> > ../bash/examples, perhaps for the reason that people are unlikely to > move just one directory out of /usr/share/doc/ via symlinks, and we > might as well not break case 2 for folks. > 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. > Do we have consensus that a: > a) links that do not climb directory trees should be encouraged to be > relative (do not break case 2) > b) subdirectories of /var/*/ and /usr/* should be treated as top level > directories for the purposes of the relative/absolute symlink rule: > any links that climbs out of /usr/foo/bar or /var/foo/bar should be > absolute, and the rest of the current rule stays in place? I agree that this is reasonable. I think that b) is fairly unnecessary anymore because of bind mounts, but I think it's logically consistent with the existing policy if we draw the line there. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
