* Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-01-18 18:25:43 CET]: > Policy: > > 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 `/'.) > > I don't remember the rationalle for policy wanting relative symlinks > inside subdirectories, and I can't find it in the archives of > debian-policy (and didn't want to read all of debian-devel before 1998 > to find it there).
Yes, me neither, which might be a bit of interest to the issue at hand. > > > On my system "/usr/share/games" is a symbolic link on other > > > partition > > > (because this directory taking a lot of disk space), so when game > > > tries to open "/usr/share/games/wesnoth/fonts/DejaVuSans.ttf" it > > > gives "No such file or directory". > > The policy on symlinks allows top-level directories to be symlinked to > elsewhere, but does not allow such symlinks of non-top-level > directories. Erm, wrong. Please read again, it's not a MUST criteria, it's a SHOULD --> it *does* allow symlinks on non-top-level directories (just discourages them), and dh_link is more strict than the policy in this respect, especially it scanning for any symbolic links in the tree and changing them, not only the ones it has in its own debian/*links files. > dh_link is exactly following policy here, but I will modify > it to respect -X so you can ignore the policy (which is just a "should", > so that'e only a normal severity bug if you do ignore it..) if you > choose. I consider it rather as a service to the users than a bug, and people filing such a bug should get me the rationale for that policy entry or live with a wontfix tagged bug... /usr in fact _is_ a pretty huge tree and forcing the symlink rule in there is asking for troubles like the ones that came up in here, and it's not only one user that reported it (and propably more that silently sighed, but I know, those are never a reasoning - but given that two spoke up is something that bothers me a bit). > Bind mounts are a much easier, modern, and better solution for > relocating parts of the filesystem tree. But bind mounts require entries in /etc/fstab whereas symlinks are a once done, once fixed approach. So long, Rhonda -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
