On Saturday 24 December 2005 03:43, Duncan wrote: > Jason Stubbs posted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, excerpted > > below, on Sat, 24 Dec 2005 02:22:06 +0900: > > A quick patch makes symlinks handled similarly to regular files and > > solves the issue. I'll put it into testing unless anybody can come up > > with a reason not to. The case that will be broken by the patch is when > > two different packages install the same symlink. PackageA is > > installed, PackageB is installed, PackageB is uninstalled -> PackageA is > > broken. Does this case exist? > > Yikes! That's not going to remove /lib or /usr/lib or the like, for us on > amd64, where that's a symlink to lib64, will it? > > equery b /lib > [ Searching for file(s) /lib in *... ] > net-analyzer/macchanger-1.5.0-r1 (/lib) > sys-apps/baselayout-1.12.0_pre12 (/lib) > sys-boot/grub-0.97 (/lib) > sys-devel/gcc-4.0.2-r1 (/lib) > sys-devel/gcc-3.4.4-r1 (/lib) > sys-fs/device-mapper-1.01.05 (/lib) > sys-fs/lvm2-2.01.14 (/lib) > sys-fs/udev-078 (/lib) > sys-libs/glibc-2.3.6 (/lib) > > There's a similar, longer list, for /usr/lib. Obviously, not all of > those will own it as a symlink, but it is one, and if removing one happens > to remove the symlink...
I'm not familiar with equery so I don't know what this output means. By the look of it, it is only a list of packages that own stuff in that directory. > Also consider the effect where a former dir is now a symlink or a former > symlink is now a dir. The recent xorg directory moves come to mind. With the patch I've done, recorded symlinks will continue to be ignored if the target is not a symlink. > You are /sure/ the new code won't screw anything of that sort up, right? > Maybe that's the reason nobody seems to have been around to know about. > It just sounds like it /could/ be dangerous to me. For some reason, I > don't like the idea of something that could hose a system that badly! =8^\ *Please* don't tell me you run ~arch. -- Jason Stubbs -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
