Re: /usr/lib to /lib symlinks (absolute?)

2014-07-25 Thread Ian Jackson
Colin Watson writes ("Re: /usr/lib to /lib symlinks (absolute?)"): > On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 10:45:14AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: > > I think it’s a bad idea to use symbolic links rather than bind mounts > > for this kind of stuff, but I’m pretty sure we would bre

Re: /usr/lib to /lib symlinks (absolute?)

2014-07-18 Thread Colin Watson
On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 10:45:14AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: > Le vendredi 18 juillet 2014 à 09:33 +0100, Colin Watson a écrit : > > It's still possible to use /usr as a separate filesystem (I hope we can > > avoid derailing into an argument about whether that's a sensible thing > > to do, an

Re: /usr/lib to /lib symlinks (absolute?)

2014-07-18 Thread Josselin Mouette
Le vendredi 18 juillet 2014 à 09:33 +0100, Colin Watson a écrit : > On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 02:27:53PM +0200, Hector Oron wrote: > > Could we add an exception to Debian policy 10.5 to mandate relative > > symlinks when linking /usr/lib to /lib or do you envision other issues > > I might have not

Re: /usr/lib to /lib symlinks (absolute?)

2014-07-18 Thread Colin Watson
On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 02:27:53PM +0200, Hector Oron wrote: > Could we add an exception to Debian policy 10.5 to mandate relative > symlinks when linking /usr/lib to /lib or do you envision other issues > I might have not taken into account? It's still possible to use /usr as a separate filesys

/usr/lib to /lib symlinks (absolute?)

2014-07-17 Thread Hector Oron
Hello, As I read in debian policy: 10.5 Symbolic links In general, symbolic links within a top-level directory should be relative, and symbolic links pointing from one top-level directory to or into another should be absolute. (A top-level directory is a sub-directory of the root directory /.)