Simon Kitching wrote:
Hi All,Some examples in the LFS book create symbolic links as follows: ln -sfv ../../lib/$(readlink /usr/lib/libz.so) /usr/lib/libz.so while some create them like this: ln -sv /proc/self/mounts /etc/mtab ln -sv /tools/lib/libgcc_s.so{,.1} /usr/lib As far as I can see, all links under /usr/lib which point back to stuff under /lib use relative paths, while links pointing to config-files and temporary hacks use absolute. Is there any reason why relative is preferred over absolute in some cases? I do find the absolute paths easier to understand..
If a directory is renamed or moved, then the relative links have a better chance of staying correct.
We use multiple forms of ln -s on purpose to show the use of different valid forms of the command.
Some directories will never move (/proc, /etc) so relative commands there are not important. /tools is completely temporary and those links will be replaced latter.
-- Bruce -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page Do not top post on this list. A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style
