Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: <snip> > I think we should really think about adding this to our hacked version of > dpkg. The idea is that dpkg shoud not store /usr/foo/bar in it's database > when installing through the symlink but /foo/bar. > > I haven't checked the dpkg source wrt this issue, but I think it shouldn't > be too hard to hack it. Please give me your opinion if this is a good idea. > What could go wrong?
I use (on my Debian GNU/Linux system) symlinks to maintain a virtual system image. So, conceptually, I have all the right things under /usr, while in fact some of them are on other partitions for space reasons. Since my partitions change not infrequently, I use symlinks to stick whole trees on different partitions. As it happens, I don't do this for anything Debian manages. To clarify: I have several partitions. One is mounted on /, another on /antelope. /usr/local/dl and /home/allover/audio are symlinks to different directories under /antelope. I can't accurately predict their sizes, so it's not practical to have them on different partitions. If I later decide to move /usr/local/dl onto a third partition, and if Debian has resolved the realpath()s of any files on it, then Bad Things will happen. Andrew
