On Mon, 12 Apr 2021 at 14:13, home user <mattis...@comcast.net> wrote:
> (context) > [...] (question 2) > In a later post, Andras provided and example of a dangling symlink (in > the "hunspell" package) that should not be deleted. When I was a C/C++ > programmer (a long long time ago, in a galaxy far far away), dangling > pointers (and memory leaks) were naughty; they can cause serious > problems. Isn't a dangling symlink a file system parallel to a dangling > pointer in a C/C++ program? What good, valid purpose is there for a > package to have a dangling symlink? Or maybe "hunspell" needs a little > clean-up? > The appropriate person to deal with dangling symlinks in a package is the maintainer. It doesn't make sense to include them in post-upgrade cleanup as that is just hiding buglets. There are several bugzilla reports many with duplicates. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1185918 was "won't fix" because it was considered a question of packaging standards. I gather that one proposal is to have rpmbuild refuse to package dangling links, but fixing all the broken packages will take work and the benefits are not large enough to justify the effort. -- George N. White III
_______________________________________________ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
