On 22-Oct-2015, Piotr Ożarowski wrote: > [Ben Finney, 2015-10-22] > > How are they bad? Searching for “dpkg” and “symlink” doesn't help > > me to know what you're referring to. Can you point us to some > > official Debian packaging documentation to explain what that > > means? > > see f.e. #626203 or > https://raphaelhertzog.com/2011/07/18/deciphering-one-of-dpkg-weirdest-errors-unable-to-open-pathtofoo-dpkg-new/
Okay, so that's not official Debian documentation; not really a problem, but it's just one person's opinion stated there. More seriously, that article doesn't support the position that “symlinks to dirs are bad, very bad for dpkg”. The article you linked to above is clear: What is wrong is *failing* to handle the symlink correctly in maintainer scripts. The symlink to a directory is not itself a problem, and the article doesn't speak against that. So, in the absence of something more concrete, I don't see a reason for ‘dh_python3’ to fail supporting a symlink to a directory when it is encountered. If you agree, I hope you'll apply the patch series I supplied. -- \ “Working out the social politics of who you can trust and why | `\ is, quite literally, what a very large part of our brain has | _o__) evolved to do.” —Douglas Adams | Ben Finney <[email protected]>
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
