On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 09:00:52AM +0200, Sven Joachim wrote:
> On 2011-08-18 01:05 +0200, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > The right way to handle it is to create the directory under a separate
> > name, populate the symlink, and only *then* rm /lib64 and invoke mv
> > /lib64.real /lib64 via $interprete
On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 08:25:14PM +0200, Sven Joachim wrote:
> >> > And no, this won't cause dpkg to fail to unpack. dpkg happily traverses
> >> > symlinks while unpacking and would never notice that the two files are
> >> > being
> >> > installed to the same location.
> >> It does if the files
On 2011-08-18 18:20 +0200, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 09:00:52AM +0200, Sven Joachim wrote:
>> > The right way to handle it is to create the directory under a separate
>> > name, populate the symlink, and only *then* rm /lib64 and invoke mv
>> > /lib64.real /lib64 via $interpr
On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 09:00:52AM +0200, Sven Joachim wrote:
> > The right way to handle it is to create the directory under a separate
> > name, populate the symlink, and only *then* rm /lib64 and invoke mv
> > /lib64.real /lib64 via $interpreter. This minimizes the window when /lib64
> > is mis
On 2011-08-18 01:05 +0200, Steve Langasek wrote:
>> The biggest change compared to the previous one is the new patch 6 which
>> tries to check that there is at least one free inode. Namely, if there
>> aren't any, the sequence
>
>> rm -f /lib64
>> $interpreter /bin/mkdir /lib64
>> $in
Hiya,
> The biggest change compared to the previous one is the new patch 6 which
> tries to check that there is at least one free inode. Namely, if there
> aren't any, the sequence
> rm -f /lib64
> $interpreter /bin/mkdir /lib64
> $interpreter /bin/ln -s $ldfile RTLD_SO
> will fail
6 matches
Mail list logo
