On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 09:57:58AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Rhonda made the suggestion that we allow absolute links /usr/*
> and /var/* symlinks to be absolute between different hierarchies, since
> these hierarchies are often the target of relocation-via-symlinking.
> A
* Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-08-27 16:57:58 CEST]:
> Do we have consensus that a:
> a) links that do not climb directory trees should be encouraged to be
> relative (do not break case 2)
> b) subdirectories of /var/*/ and /usr/* should be treated as top level
> dir
On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 09:57:58AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hi,
>
> To summarize, here are a few use cases:
> 1) A directory that lives in the package is replaced by a symbolic link
> to another partition (I've done it in a space crunch, people sharing
> directories using
On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 09:57:58AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Do we have consensus that a:
> a) links that do not climb directory trees should be encouraged to be
> relative (do not break case 2)
> b) subdirectories of /var/*/ and /usr/* should be treated as top level
> dir
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Do we have consensus that a:
> a) links that do not climb directory trees should be encouraged to be
> relative (do not break case 2)
> b) subdirectories of /var/*/ and /usr/* should be treated as top level
> directories for the purp
Hi,
To summarize, here are a few use cases:
1) A directory that lives in the package is replaced by a symbolic link
to another partition (I've done it in a space crunch, people sharing
directories using AFS run into similar issues.)
2) Remote mounting a directory from one mach
Lionel Elie Mamane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 11:42:23AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Gerfried Fuchs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> Quite some times I experienced them to be more pain than gain,
>>> too. It might be useful if people shift around complete hierarchies,
On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 11:42:23AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Gerfried Fuchs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> * Lionel Elie Mamane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-08-15 16:47:41 CEST]:
>>> So, is there any reason at all to use relative symlinks?
>> Quite some times I experienced them to be more pain t
On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 07:49:14PM +0200, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
> * Lionel Elie Mamane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-08-15 16:47:41 CEST]:
>> During Manoj's "policy" talk at DebConf8, Gerfried opened the
>> subject of the policy's stand on relative and
Gerfried Fuchs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Lionel Elie Mamane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-08-15 16:47:41 CEST]:
>> So, is there any reason at all to use relative symlinks?
>
> Quite some times I experienced them to be more pain than gain, too. It
> might be useful if people shift around complet
DebConf8, Gerfried opened the subject
> of the policy's stand on relative and absolute symlinks, which
> currently is "absolute if going through top-level, relative
> otherwise".
>
> I wanted to give another data-point: Mailman switched its intra-/var/
> symlinks to
Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
> (Further discussion should happen on [EMAIL PROTECTED], but please
> CC me.)
>
> During Manoj's "policy" talk at DebConf8, Gerfried opened the subject
> of the policy's stand on relative and absolute symlinks, which
> currently i
(Further discussion should happen on [EMAIL PROTECTED], but please
CC me.)
During Manoj's "policy" talk at DebConf8, Gerfried opened the subject
of the policy's stand on relative and absolute symlinks, which
currently is "absolute if going through top-level, relative
othe
13 matches
Mail list logo
