Robert P. J. Day wrote: > i'm curious about RH packaging policy that dictates that some > command variants are packaged for fedora to install with symlinks > and others with hardlinks. > > trivial example in /usr/bin on my fedora 27 system: > > -rwsr-xr-x. 1 root root 52984 Aug 2 2017 at > lrwxrwxrwx. 1 root root 2 Aug 2 2017 atq -> at > lrwxrwxrwx. 1 root root 2 Aug 2 2017 atrm -> at > > so even though all of those "commands" are in the very same directory, > atq and atrm are supported via symlinks, not hardlinks.
I would bet that often the use of symlink or hardlink is part of the upstream install scripts. Unless there is a strong reason to change that, the packaging should just follow upstream. > OTOH, consider the "git" command, also in /usr/bin: > > -rwxr-xr-x. 116 root root 2273360 Feb 16 15:03 git > > as you can see, there are 116 hardlinks to that executable, pretty > much all of them in /usr/libexec/git-core: > > -rwxr-xr-x. 116 root root 2273360 Feb 16 15:03 git > -rwxr-xr-x. 116 root root 2273360 Feb 16 15:03 git-add > -rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root 41441 Feb 16 15:03 git-add--interactive > -rwxr-xr-x. 3 root root 2273360 Feb 16 15:03 git-am > -rwxr-xr-x. 116 root root 2273360 Feb 16 15:03 git-annotate > -rwxr-xr-x. 116 root root 2273360 Feb 16 15:03 git-apply > -rwxr-xr-x. 116 root root 2273360 Feb 16 15:03 git-archive > ... big snip ... > is there a reason that "at" uses symlinks, while "git" installs with > hardlinks? one would imagine that it would be the other way around -- > given that the "at" variations are all in the same directory, > hardlinks would seem to be the better choice since there is no > possibility of crossing filesystem boundaries. > > also, what if i manually partitioned while installing, and put > /usr/bin and /usr/libexec in separate partitions? (yes, i realize > that's not the standard these days -- all of /usr defaults to a single > partition -- but i'm assuming i still have the freedom to do something > that unwise.) would git then switch to symlinks to support all those > command name variants? > > just curious about how decisions like this are made WRT to > packaging. The git package uses hardlinks and includes some duplication of binaries precisely to avoid cross-directory hardlinks. That allows /usr/bin and /usr/libexec to be mounted on different file systems. It's not all that common to do that, I'm sure. But rpmlint warns about such cross-directory hardlinks. While working on the git packaging I used the support in upstream git's Makefile (NO_CROSS_DIRECTORY_HARDLINKS): https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/git/c/6ef5f1f7232 That change was made in the master (rawhide) branch. It will be part of Fedora 28. It's not a change worth applying to other releases by itself, so I don't expect to see it pushed to the current Fedora 26/27 releases. Ideally such changes are reasonably described in the commit message. I strive to write detailed commit messages so future maintainers or anyone curious can see why a given change was made. Not every packager does this, of course. And I'm sure that despite my best efforts, I might not always describe the reasoning for a change in a way that answers all the questions someone may have in the future. I think it's worth poking through the git history of the packages you're curious about. There may be some answers about the others in the commit logs. The git repositories for all Fedora packages can be found at: https://src.fedoraproject.org/ -- Todd ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ When you make a mistake, make amends immediately. It's easier to eat crow while it's still warm.
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ users mailing list -- firstname.lastname@example.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org