Bug#970234: consider dropping "No hard links in source packages"
> "Bill" == Bill Allombert writes: Bill> I am pretty sure we were concerned about source packages being Bill> unpackable on non Debian systems, though. And I think we probably still are. I was trying to capture the concerns there in the part of my message you trimmed. My rationale is that I don't think we want to work around an upstream build system or repack sources just because it has hard links. On the other hand I also don't think we want to depend on hard links being preserved.
Bug#970234: consider dropping "No hard links in source packages"
On Tue, Oct 13, 2020 at 09:44:42AM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote: > > "Giacomo" == Giacomo Catenazzi writes: > > Giacomo> The rationale was probably similar so symlinks: they may > Giacomo> fail across different filesystems, and we supported to have > Giacomo> e.g. / /usr /usr/share /usr/local /var (and various /var/*) > Giacomo> /home /tmp /boot etc on different file systems. Now we are > Giacomo> more strict on where we can split filesystems (and disk are > Giacomo> larger, and LVM simplified much of filesystem handling). > > But I think even in 1996, we anticipated a single source package > (*source package*) being unpacked on a single filesystem. > Perhaps we were worried about filesystems like umsdos? It is good to see I am not the only one left who remember about umsdos! I am pretty sure we were concerned about source packages being unpackable on non Debian systems, though. Cheers, -- Bill. Imagine a large red swirl here.
Bug#970234: consider dropping "No hard links in source packages"
> "Giacomo" == Giacomo Catenazzi writes: Giacomo> The rationale was probably similar so symlinks: they may Giacomo> fail across different filesystems, and we supported to have Giacomo> e.g. / /usr /usr/share /usr/local /var (and various /var/*) Giacomo> /home /tmp /boot etc on different file systems. Now we are Giacomo> more strict on where we can split filesystems (and disk are Giacomo> larger, and LVM simplified much of filesystem handling). But I think even in 1996, we anticipated a single source package (*source package*) being unpacked on a single filesystem. Perhaps we were worried about filesystems like umsdos? I think that hard links in a source package are fine provided that breaking the hard links would not either break the build or provide an unreasonable space multiplier.
Bug#970234: consider dropping "No hard links in source packages"
Hello Helmut On 12.10.2020 19:30, Helmut Grohne wrote: You appear to be talking about binary packages. This bug is about source packages. When you unpack a source package, you are creating a directory hiearchy rooted at the point where you start unpacking. There is not possibly any reasonable way to split your source package into multiple file systems. This is very different from binary packages where the underlying hiearchy is shared with other packages and directories frequently already exist. Your are totally right. And it is also on the subject line. So: I have not reasonable explanation. ciao cate
