Hi! On Thu, 2015-07-23 at 10:36:33 +0200, Harald Dunkel wrote: > On 07/22/15 15:19, Guillem Jover wrote: > >> > >> If dpkg is unreliable, then what are the package signatures good for? > > > > I'm not sure which package signatures you're talking about. But, no, this > > is very old “expected” behavior, it's documented both in the dpkg FAQ: > > I can assure you that this is not expected. Instead of a symlink > there was an empty directory, breaking the development environment > on some of our build hosts.
Perhaps expected was not the appropriate word. I didn't mean it in the sense of what a user might intuitively expect, but what one might expect from the relevant documentation, which is rather old. > > > > <https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/Dpkg/FAQ#Q:_Will_dpkg_replace_a_symlink_with_a_directory_or_vice_versa.3F> > > If I got this right, then not taking care of the previous > /usr/include/asm directory it is a serious bug in gcc-multilib. > It should have provided a preinst script for that. Is this > correct? Whoever provided or created that symlink, and then stopped doing so should have cleaned after itself, yes. Thanks, Guillem
