hey, On Thu, May 19, 2005 at 08:35:03AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > > > 3 does not sound so bad to me; it's arguably user error anyway to replace > > > a > > > package-provided directory with a symlink in this manner > > > If you consider this an user error, then what is the officially blessed > > way of relocating a package-prodived directory to a different (already > > mounted) file system? > > currently, that would be bind mounts.
policy could definitely be more clear on this. specifically, 6.5.4
is somewhat misleading in that case:
A directory will never be replaced by a symbolic link to a
directory or vice versa; instead, the existing state (symlink
or not) will be left alone and dpkg will follow the symlink if
there is one.
and i had never really heard that symlinking was to be frowned upon.
i do like your suggestion of bind mounts though, and will probably
do that myself in the future.
sean
--
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
