On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 10:23 AM, Xavier<shinin...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 5:13 PM, Thomas Bächler<tho...@archlinux.org> wrote: >> Aaron Griffin schrieb: >>> >>> That's a fair point, but what use is an Arch system that's not >>> chrooted into? I don't expect /mnt/archlinux/usr/bin/gtkpod to work on >>> a CentOS system. It sounds like an edge case. >> >> Not talking about binaries here, but generally messing around with random >> files on a mounted system. I often found myself in a great mess with >> absolute symlinks in the past, while relative never gave any downside. >> >> > > A quick google returned me a similar discussion with similar arguments : > https://www.zarb.org/pipermail/rpmlint-discuss/2006-June/000094.html > And apparently they decided to prefer relative symlinks. > > However, the debian policy linked in the same post does not seem to > have changed : > "In general, symbolic links within a top-level directory should be > relative, and symbolic links pointing from one top-level directory > into another should be absolute. (A top-level directory is a > sub-directory of the root directory /.) "
Think we should vote on this one? Do we care enough? I like the sound of the debian policy
