El 15/4/24 a las 22:26, Bill Allombert escribió:
On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 09:52:39AM +0000, MOESSBAUER, Felix wrote:
On Fri, 04 Aug 2023 10:44:38 +0000 sohe4b+2fz7rb0ixc53g@cs.email wrote:
Package: base-files
Version: 12.4+deb12u1
Followup-For: Bug #1039979
Control: tags -1 patch
I attach a patch to change absolute symlinks to relative symlinks,
which would fix this bugreport if you choose to do so.
At least the /var/run directory is also created as a symlink to ../run
by tmpfiles.d:
/usr/lib/tmpfiles.d/var.conf from the systemd package contains:
L /var/run - - - - ../run
Why not fix /usr/lib/tmpfiles.d/var.conf to create the correct link then ?
/usr/lib/tmpfiles.d/var.conf is not policy-compliant as it is.
Note that you are using here the words "fix" and "correct" to mean "what policy
says".
However, the point the reporter was trying to make (if I understood correctly)
is that there is already a "trend" by which it's more useful to have those
symlinks as relative, and the systemd reference was just to highlight such
trend.
So the question would be: Is policy really correct by requesting those
symlinks to be absolute considering that there seems to be a significant amount
of people (including systemd upstream) who consider more useful for them
to be relative?
Thanks.
