David Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, 6 Jul 2005, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
>
>> There are not going to be any symlinks at all. There is no need
>
> So, the posted documents are not correct on this (basic, major) point?
The only case symlinks are needed is binaries with rpath. Death to
binaries with rpath. :)
Having the links can hide problems in other parts I would rather see
crash and burn during build than 2 years from now when symlinks are
removed.
> And why not have them? Obviously there is a need - to ease migration...
>
> If I may venture a little further, the idea that all of this must be
> done in one giant atomic effort is apparently very popular... why?
At best that is a misconception. Or a misunderstanding of the design.
MfG
Goswin
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
