Bug#922674: debian-policy: make symlink requirements consistent

2023-07-12 Thread sothrt+f20muazw5tue8
Package: debian-policy Followup-For: Bug #922674 Dear Maintainer, https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1039979 has come up as something to consider regarding this related change in debian policy. In that context, I'd advocate for permitting '..' in symlinks, even if only as an

Bug#922674: debian-policy: make symlink requirements consistent

2019-02-19 Thread Russ Allbery
Ansgar Burchardt writes: > It seems strange to treat top-level directories differently: why > should /usr be allowed to be a symlink, but /usr/local, /usr/lib or > /usr/share/doc not? I can't come up with a better idea than that > top-level directories are something like "driver letters". I

Bug#922674: debian-policy: make symlink requirements consistent

2019-02-19 Thread Steve Kowalik
On 19/2/19 8:50 pm, Ansgar Burchardt wrote: It seems strange to treat top-level directories differently: why should /usr be allowed to be a symlink, but /usr/local, /usr/lib or /usr/share/doc not? I can't come up with a better idea than that top-level directories are something like "driver

Bug#922674: debian-policy: make symlink requirements consistent

2019-02-19 Thread Ansgar Burchardt
Package: debian-policy Version: 4.3.0.2 Severity: normal Policy 10.5 (Symbolic links) currently has two classes of requirements: Symlinks between /${x} and /${x} (same top-level directory) must use relative links; symlinks between /${x} and /${y} (different top-level directories). The historic