On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 10:14:16AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Roger Leigh writes:
>
> The "solution" to the chroot problem is to always manipulate the chroot
> via chroot, which ensures that the view of everything in the chroot is
> consistent. But I realize that's not always feasible or obvio
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 10:14:16AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Roger Leigh writes:
>
> Yeah, it's basically a tradeoff between chroot handling and "nested"
> symlinks. I suppose I'm probably old-school here, in that I learned how
> to do UNIX system administration before such things as bind mou
Roger Leigh writes:
> I am, however, unsure if the policy is the ideal solution today compared
> with 1998 when the Linux VFS was much more primitive. I am yet to be
> convinced that the absolute link is better technically. One thing I'm
> wanting to do (when time allows) is work on merging /us
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 10:12:06AM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 03:32:24PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > Carsten Hey writes:
> >
> > > Besides "/usr -> /", are symlinks to directories still supported as
> > > top-level directories and are there still people using such a
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 03:32:24PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Carsten Hey writes:
>
> > Besides "/usr -> /", are symlinks to directories still supported as
> > top-level directories and are there still people using such a setup?
> > If nobody uses this anymore, the policy could be adapted to th
* Carsten Hey [2011-05-11 01:06 +0200]:
> * Russ Allbery [2011-05-10 15:32 -0700]:
> > Carsten Hey writes:
> >
> > > Besides "/usr -> /", are symlinks to directories still supported as
> > > top-level directories and are there still people using such a setup?
> > > If nobody uses this anymore, the
* Russ Allbery [2011-05-10 15:32 -0700]:
> Carsten Hey writes:
>
> > Besides "/usr -> /", are symlinks to directories still supported as
> > top-level directories and are there still people using such a setup?
> > If nobody uses this anymore, the policy could be adapted to the year
> > 2011.
>
> I
Carsten Hey writes:
> Besides "/usr -> /", are symlinks to directories still supported as
> top-level directories and are there still people using such a setup?
> If nobody uses this anymore, the policy could be adapted to the year
> 2011.
Is there any reason *not* to continue supporting them?
* Russ Allbery [2011-05-10 09:41 -0700]:
> Roger Leigh writes:
>
> > Section 10.5 states:
>
> > In general, symbolic links within a top-level directory should be
> > relative, and symbolic links pointing from one top-level directory
> > into another should be absolute. (A top-level
Roger Leigh writes:
> Section 10.5 states:
> In general, symbolic links within a top-level directory should be
> relative, and symbolic links pointing from one top-level directory
> into another should be absolute. (A top-level directory is a
> sub-directory of the root dire
Hi,
Section 10.5 states:
In general, symbolic links within a top-level directory should be
relative, and symbolic links pointing from one top-level directory
into another should be absolute. (A top-level directory is a
sub-directory of the root directory `/'.)
It's not obvio
11 matches
Mail list logo
