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
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.)
2) Remote mounting a directory from one
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
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
On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 09:57:58AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
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
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
* Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-08-27 16:57:58 CEST]:
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
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
* Lionel Elie Mamane [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-08-15 16:47:41 CEST]:
(Further discussion should happen on [EMAIL PROTECTED], but please
CC me.)
Same with me, I plan to scan the archives of the list, but am not
subscribed.
During Manoj's policy talk at DebConf8, Gerfried opened the subject
of
Gerfried Fuchs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Lionel Elie Mamane [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-08-15 16:47:41 CEST]:
So, is there any reason at all to use relative symlinks?
Quite some times I experienced them to be more pain than gain, too. It
might be useful if people shift around complete
On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 07:49:14PM +0200, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
* Lionel Elie Mamane [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-08-15 16:47:41 CEST]:
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
On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 11:42:23AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Gerfried Fuchs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Lionel Elie Mamane [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-08-15 16:47:41 CEST]:
So, is there any reason at all to use relative symlinks?
Quite some times I experienced them to be more pain than gain,
Lionel Elie Mamane [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 11:42:23AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Gerfried Fuchs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Quite some times I experienced them to be more pain than gain,
too. It might be useful if people shift around complete hierarchies,
but we are
12 matches
Mail list logo
