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 exc
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 thi
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 lette
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 r
4 matches
Mail list logo
