On 2012-07-11 21:18 +0200, Bart Martens wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 07:07:49PM +0200, Sven Joachim wrote:
>> On 2012-07-11 18:53 +0200, Bart Martens wrote:
>> > In my opinion, regardless of the order in which these two packages are
>> > installed, dpkg should fail to install the second package, with an error
>> > message about /usr/include/tcl.
>>
>> Policy (ยง6.6) actually documents this behavior:
>>
>> A directory will never be replaced by a symbolic link to a
>> directory or vice versa; instead, the existing state (symlink or
>> not) will be left alone
>
> OK.
>
>> and `dpkg' will follow the symlink if there is one.
>
> I'm not convinced that this is a good choice. Do you know where this choice
> comes from ?
You probably have to ask Ian Jackson; this behavior exists at least
since dpkg 1.0.0.
I suppose that some people used symlinks to relocate parts of their
directory hierarchy elsewhere to work around ENOSPC problems, and while
today it's much saner to use bind mounts to achieve that, those were not
available in 1995.
Cheers,
Sven
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
