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 letters".
So I suggest to either:
(a) require *all* symlinks to be relative
(b) forbid using '..' in symlinks
You target directories, but don't mention files in your wording, and I
think forbidding use of '..' in symlinks unilaterally is the wrong
approach, for this simple reason:
steven@wrecked:~% find /usr/share/doc -type l -exec ls -l "{}" \; | grep
-c '\.\./.*Debian.gz'
746
If the wording was ratcheted down to forbidding '..' for symlinking
directories, I think I'm okay with it.
Cheers,
--
Steve
"Yes, let's not jump to any conclusions."
"I didn't jump. I took a tiny step, and there conclusions were."
- Rupert Giles vs Buffy Summers
